Friday, March 24, 2006

The myth of global warming

This headline makes no sense:
Melting ice threatens sea-level rise

Here's why. Water is one of the only materials that when it freezes, it expands. Thusly, when it melts, it contracts. For instance, if you fill a glass with water and put an ice cube in it then wait for the ice to melt the water level actually goes down.

This is where the environmental movement ceases to hold water (pun intended). Because, as I have stated above, the rise of sea levels cannot be the result of polar melting. Melting icebergs and icecaps (The North Pole being the warmer of the two would be the first to melt which has no land mass under it like the South Pole) would then cause a recession of waters along the coasts.

It is, then, global warming (if it existed) that is keeping the oceans from rising to dangerous levels!


Anonymous said...

It's great that we have bloggers with no credentials out here to prove our scientists wrong. Any stock tips while you're at it?

azoric said...

My credentials include a bachelor of science degree in which I use my sharp analytical skills as a computer programmer. These skills are similar to the ones used by scientists, or as I have done here, to comprehend the true meaning and motivation behind politically charged news articles. I also use these analytical skills to notice that you did not actually substantively debate any of my points.

Oh, and I aranged to move some emerging market funds into my Roth IRA.

Anonymous said...

that is the most retarded theory i've ever heard. even the bush adminstration could bs better than that.

you want a better theory? fill a cup with half an inch of water now put three ice cubes in it. wait an hour and see if the level has risen. then see if that's politcally charged.

and to quote what the guy above said, its great to see that we have computer programmers with no credentials out here to prove our scientists wrong.

and your best bet if foreign mutual funds if you're willing to risk it a little.

Anonymous said...

It's an alright theory, but even tho it's true, it's still false. Water may expand when it freezes, but it remains concentrated, and because of a scientific principal called buoyancy, much of the ice floats above sea level.

Thus, if all the water that is CONCENTRATED as glacers melt, then it will distribute itself around the globe and cause raising tides which will probably engulf coastal regions. You have to remember that the ice is not currently a part of the ocean. If the glacers were completely submerged, which is the only way your theory could be true, then the sun wouldn't be able to melt them.

And Global Warming is NOT just about melting ice caps. Truthfully, it is one of the "best" consequences. I mean, we can live without California, Florida and New York. We don't WANT to, but we can do it. But, the storms that result from warmer ocean temperatures will just ravage areas. As well, the warmer the planet becomes, the less climate stability we will have, so for instance, it would not be unusual for the plains of America to get washed out during their season, not only losing their crop, but losing the seed that crop was going to drop, as well, having the top soil be damaged for a season.

You have to remember that Global Warming is about increased levels of green house gases, which the scientific community agrees has at least in part been caused by human activity.

Also, melting ice caps is also a result of missing ozone layer, which is not a side effect of global warmning. It is caused by the emission of CFCs which break apart O3.

Either way, both Global Warming and the Ozone hole are a result of an excess of human emitted carbons.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry anonymous Mr. Green-house gasses. I'd rather listen to a computer programmer on this subject.

Besides, all of these natural disasters are because God is punishing Americans for its acceptance of gays and exposure Janet Jackson's nipple, not global warming.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting, I must say... I know that when I took Oceanography in college I could never understand why Global Warming was such a big deal since the earth naturally has climate changes and we have been in a "Little Ice Age" since the mid-1700s (if memory serves me). So in my opinion, the scientists can't really SAY what causes temperatures to rise every year by negligible amounts (1% of a degree or something like that) and even if we use the ice cube/ice berg analogy isn't 60% of iceberg mass BENEATH the surface? So Andy's theory COULD be correct since once melted, that 60% may occupy less VOLUME of the ocean as it contracts when melted.

The Ozone layer argument could have some validity, though... but we might find out that scientist think it's being depleted by excess human gas emissions due to population increase (as in gases emitted from the anus, not technology) :-p

Anonymous said...

here's my comment. You are wonderful. God Bless you:)

nwilde said...

Wow, now I'm just a lowly rocket scientist, but I'm pretty sure buoyancy is about fluidic displacement. An iceberg volumetrically displaces the same mass of sea water as the mass of the iceberg (buoyancy). One pint of water weighs one pound. One pound of ice (having 92% of the density of water) has a volume of 1.09 pints. As a result, the ice floats with about 90% of it underwater because buoyancy IS equal mass displacement. One pound of floating ice will displace one pound of water. As the ice melts the water level will stay the same ASSUMING the water temperature doesn't change.

BUT, sea water is not pure water and only a small amount of polar ice is free floating (at the North Pole the ice is floating, yes, but not far away there is land, particularly in the western hemisphere). The complicating issue is that icebergs have less salt content then sea water. Sea water has a 2 to 4% greater density then pure water because of all the extra stuff, salt being the largest mass contributor. As polar oceans freeze, the ice crystals group together and float to the top, and eventually make bergs, leaving much of the salt behind. This makes the polar waters saltier and, thus, denser. Blah blah blah, the end result is that it's not quite as simple as a cube of ice in a glass of water (so don't use that as a comparison). So does all that mean icebergs will make the oceans rise? No, not really, not by any amount you'll see anyway.

The issue isn't icebergs, that's just something the press jumps on because that's what comes to mind when you hear "polar ice". You can get the Coast Guard to photograph an iceberg easily enough, but who wants to go the Greenland? You know, that giant non-floating ice sheet that is the source of most of the Atlantic's biggest bergs? Antarctica makes the northern ice seem trivial. Most of the world's ice IS NOT floating, and that's what they're afraid of.

Still, what kathie said is true. Weather trend are based on only one hundred years of observation (using constantly changing technology) and the observed changes are slight. Geological evidence would seem to show that things have been warming for thousands of years, so is this really OUR problem or just a natural process?

N. Wilde.