Topic: Dangers of Global Warming.

[razor18]

I wouldn't mind it getting warmer, now what it would do for you guys that don't believe there is a problem I don't know, because know one can prevent it..




_________________
Manitowoc Ice Machine

[goon 1492]

Ya know its not just global warming, if the epa had more of policing capabilities (that Regan helped strip away) we probably would be in better shape right now, I just heard of a show that was aired talking about the bays in washington and how the PCB'S that are in the silt at the bottom are being abosrbed into the marine life, these PCB's are an organic compound that doesn't break down and as it's absorbed into marine life it stays in their bodies. The killer whales then eat these and same situation but its killing the killer whales. They had a guy that said he has been monitoring them for 30yrs now and they have another 20yrs and the killer whales will be gone.

This goes right in hand with all the Pharmaceuticals and other drugs, hormones, birth control, etc. that (they have been discovering for years now) are in our drinking water.

Ladies and Gentlemen I was always told as a kid that in the bible there was going to be a plague that would wipe out 2/3rds of the worlds population at the end of our time, I do believe we are the plague that will do it, it will kill us all along with everything else that we share this planet with. Think about it, what is your job that you do for a living and its impact on everything around you, then think of it all as a whole, the people you ride along side with on the highway heading to work doing the same thing....

[goon 1492]

Sorry I forgot to add this to my reply this morning, was on break and limited access.
PCB's=

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/effects.htm

[masonryman]

"Think about it, what is your job that you do for a living and its impact on everything around you,"

Can't get much greener than my job, build shelter using all natrual materals and no trees harmed in the process, build with brick

[kpier883]

Some time back in this thread, there was a statement which I have copied and quoted here:

... also a 14000 square kilometer chunk has just broken away from Antarctica, it has walls 200 feet thick on the surface, lots more under the water, this piece alone if completely melted would see ocean levels rise quite a bit.

Wouldn't all the ice that is already under the water actually occupy less space once it is melted?  If so, the underwater part (which you point out is the bulk of it), would not raise the water levels around the Earth at all.  Only the part above the water line would have the potential to raise the level of the oceans.

Since ice floats in water, I can only assume that it is less dense than water and that the melted ice would take up less space than the ice does.  It is not clear to me whether the melting of this ice would raise the level of the ocean or not. 

Stated another way - If I take a piece of ice from the freezer and put it in a glass of water, how close to the top of the glass does the water have to be in order for it to overflow when the ice melts? 

I have set up the experiment in the kitchen to see what happens.  I put some ice in a glass then filled it to the top with water.  The ice is floating in the water and does extend above the level of the glass.  I will post the result later to see if the glass overflows as the ice melts.

I am updating to include some "before" pictures:

[HondaMan]

"Think about it, what is your job that you do for a living and its impact on everything around you,"

Can't get much greener than my job, build shelter using all natrual materals and no trees harmed in the process, build with brick

Oh, Masonman, if you were only here to help me with the bricks! I'm poor at it: you guys are such skilled craftsmen...it's a lot harder to lay good brick than it looks!

[333]

But, again, we are not talking about icebergs melting, we are talking about ice not already floating, that if it melts, will rise the water level of our oceans.

And yes, there is atomized air in virtually all ice.  I can't tell you how it gets there, but I know it's there because of the Discovery Channel.  They did a show on ice sculptures.  Did you ever notice how clear the ice is on one of those sculptures?  That's because the water used has to sit for over a week, perfectly still, before it gets frozen.  In that time, all the air rises up and out, making it crystal clear.  Not like any ice cube out of your fridge.  And not like any ice made in nature.  And I'll bet an ice sculpture doesn't float.

[masonryman]

"Think about it, what is your job that you do for a living and its impact on everything around you,"

Can't get much greener than my job, build shelter using all natural materials and no trees harmed in the process, build with brick

Oh, Masonman, if you were only here to help me with the bricks! I'm poor at it: you guys are such skilled craftsmen...it's a lot harder to lay good brick than it looks!

The biggest compliment ever;

"That don't look to hard I think I could do that"  reply, I bet you can......, give me a call when you get tired of trying :>
                                        

[kpier883]

The water didn't run over the top of the glass.  Now, I am not 100% confident in my method.  The ice may have floated up more after I got started or something. 

But in general, the water level didn't rise or if it did, it was very very slight.  Here is the after pic:

[kpier883]

But, again, we are not talking about icebergs melting, we are talking about ice not already floating, that if it melts, will rise the water level of our oceans.

What the post said was this:
14000 square kilometer chunk has just broken away from Antarctica,  it has walls 200 feet thick on the surface, lots more under the water,

(I added the underlining)

Lets assume that all of it was above the water level prior to breaking off.  Now the post doesn't say how much more is under the water than above, but it does say "lots more under the water".  So, for our purpose, let us suppose that it is floating around with 90% of it under the water and 10% above water.   

Wouldn't the level of the ocean have already risen to 90% of the amount it will rise if the whole thing melts?  After all, where is the water that is being displaced by the part of the ice that is below the surface?

Maybe only 50% of it is actually under water.  Then the ocean would have risen by half already of what it will rise once the other 50% is no longer above water.  However, I think it is unlikely that only 50% would be underwater.

[mlinder]

Water expands when turned to ice. (water is pretty much the only thing that expands both when being made into a solid or a gas, but that's neither here nor there), but as far as I know, it isn't the ice thats already in water that poses the supposed issue of water rising. Far as I can tell, it's pretty much dead freakin even once the ice thaws out. As in, the the space the entire melted ice takes up is not much larger than the space taken up by the ice that was submerged under water.

I think the issue is the ice thats on land, that people are worried about. That stuff isn't already in the water, so the displacement caused is the entirety of the melted ice, in that case.

[Markcb750]

But, again, we are not talking about icebergs melting, we are talking about ice not already floating, that if it melts, will rise the water level of our oceans.

What the post said was this:
14000 square kilometer chunk has just broken away from Antarctica,  it has walls 200 feet thick on the surface, lots more under the water,

(I added the underlining)



Lets assume that all of it was above the water level prior to breaking off.  Now the post doesn't say how much more is under the water than above, but it does say "lots more under the water".  So, for our purpose, let us suppose that it is floating around with 90% of it under the water and 10% above water.   

Wouldn't the level of the ocean have already risen to 90% of the amount it will rise if the whole thing melts?  After all, where is the water that is being displaced by the part of the ice that is below the surface?

Maybe only 50% of it is actually under water.  Then the ocean would have risen by half already of what it will rise once the other 50% is no longer above water.  However, I think it is unlikely that only 50% would be underwater.

All the floating ice in the world could melt, no rise in ocean level will occur, you can prove this to yourself with a full cup of water and a few ice cubes.

It is the water from glaciers and Ice Caps of Antarctica/Greenland/Siberia etc etc that would cause the oceans to rise.


This is the problem with the "debate" on Global warming, people that do not understand floating Ice want to have their opinion equal to those who understand the science involved.  kind of like seeking a second opinion from  Witch Doctor...

[mlinder]

Got some real numbers. Water expands about 9% when frozen. about 10% of icebergs are whats above water.
But, then theres that other thing about a full thing of ice not displacing any more area in water than it would in liquid form.
Even if that weren't true, the increase would be only some 1%. But it isn't.

[kpier883]

Thats what I said before:   

"Lets assume that all of it was above the water level prior to breaking off.  Now the post doesn't say how much more is under the water than above, but it does say "lots more under the water".  So, for our purpose, let us suppose that it is floating around with 90% of it under the water and 10% above water.   "

The original poster says that when it melts it will raise the level of the world's oceans.

I contend that the part that broke off already raised the level of the ocean by as much (or at least 90% as much) as it is going to.  This is because 90% of it is now under water.  It displaced at least 90% of what it will add to the ocean already.  Hence, the idea that "if it melts, the oceans will rise" significantly cannot be correct, since it would have already done so.

[kpier883]

One other thing.  If one shot all the Somali pirates and threw them into the ocean, how much would the ocean rise?

[mlinder]

They're very hungry from everyone stealing their fish. Since they are so skinny, and the fish that they would have eaten are taken OUT, I think it probably breaks even.

[333]

We could debate this until the cows come home, and we won't solve anything.  So, let me point out something.

If we, as a society, decide to change our way of life to do something about global warming, and then it turns out that we were wrong, what will be the problem?  It will have cost us money and time.  We will have given up some of the things that bring us joy(gas burning, tire screeching, wind in your face joy), and in the process will have made a cleaner world.

On the other hand, if we decide to do nothing, and we end up being wrong, the consequences could be much worse.

We as motorcyclists are inherently risk takers.  We take risks, but only for ourselves.  Should we be willing to take a risk for the rest of the world?

Somalie's?  Am I in the right thread?

[mlinder]

I think the new politically correct term is 'Global Climate Change', 333, because 'Warming' was too... difficult... to prove. They needed to go with something a bit more ambiguous. Easier to manipulate data to support something that is nearly unidentifiable. Words are funny. You ever wonder why there's no antonym for 'androgynous'? Think about it a second. Weird #$%*, language is.

Not that I disagree that cleaning things up a bit would be nice.

[Markcb750]

We could debate this until the cows come home, and we won't solve anything.  So, let me point out something.

If we, as a society, decide to change our way of life to do something about global warming, and then it turns out that we were wrong, what will be the problem?  It will have cost us money and time.  We will have given up some of the things that bring us joy(gas burning, tire screeching, wind in your face joy), and in the process will have made a cleaner world.

On the other hand, if we decide to do nothing, and we end up being wrong, the consequences could be much worse.

We as motorcyclists are inherently risk takers.  We take risks, but only for ourselves.  Should we be willing to take a risk for the rest of the world?

Somalie's?  Am I in the right thread?

Me, taking risks, like at 105 on a 33 year old motorcycle I rebuilt myself?

+1  on the risk to others.

Best to do something, and who knows what we might develop as we try to do something besides recounting our beans.

[kpier883]

I am just saying that we should actually think about some of the statements that are being made rather than taking action based on statements that may not make a lot of sense once they have been evaluated.

I do agree that cleaning up is useful.  But I am in no position to preach to anyone - I would guess that I spew out as much harmful emission in one ride to work on my CB750 as I would in a week in my car with catalytic converter, fuel injection etc....

Deep thought for today:
If I had a solar cell on my roof that was powerful enough to run my refrigerator, then my milk would be hot on cold cloudy days, but it would be cold on hot sunny days.   

[Markcb750]

Deep thought

If you design your power system to only work on sunny days, you have followed the advice of the same people who do not understand floating ice.

Seek out some competent help.


Just an observation.

[mlinder]

And who doesn't understand floating ice?

[mark]

We could debate this until the cows come home, and we won't solve anything.  So, let me point out something.

If we, as a society, decide to change our way of life to do something about global warming, and then it turns out that we were wrong, what will be the problem?  It will have cost us money and time.  We will have given up some of the things that bring us joy(gas burning, tire screeching, wind in your face joy), and in the process will have made a cleaner world.

On the other hand, if we decide to do nothing, and we end up being wrong, the consequences could be much worse.

We as motorcyclists are inherently risk takers.  We take risks, but only for ourselves.  Should we be willing to take a risk for the rest of the world?

I'm ok with that.

I do agree that cleaning up is useful.  But I am in no position to preach to anyone - I would guess that I spew out as much harmful emission in one ride to work on my CB750 as I would in a week in my car with catalytic converter, fuel injection etc....

My Dodge has three catalytic converters, exhaust gas recirculation, exhaust air injection, and a fuel delivery system with computing power to rival a modern wristwatch.

Some of it may have worked pretty well during Reagan's second term.

It gets maybe 17 mpg downhill with a tailwind. I can probably ride the 550 to town and back on the raw gas that the Dodge blows out the tailpipe in the first couple minutes after a cold start.



I saw a Smart Car the other day.

It being painted 'tennis ball yellow' helped a lot.

I think they should all be painted that color.



When ice cubes melt it turns into water and dilutes my beverage. I pee it out and it runs downhill. Nearly 3000 feet from here. Melt all the ice there is and I'll still be miles from the beach. That pretty much covers the subject of ice for me.


Happy trails.

[mark]

Of course there's more......



It's easy to toss around terms like 'global warming', 'climate change', 'politically correct', and even 'sustainability'.

I hear that last one a lot.

The usual context is that we have to consume less so that others may consume more.

So that more others may consume more.



If you have a million acres of grassland and ten cows, the grass will grow faster than the cows can eat it and they will make lots of little cows. Nice fat happy healthy cows. They'll be there, you just might have to ride a while to find them.

If you have a thousand acres of grassland and a hundred cows, the grass isn't going to get quite as tall. You will have no problem finding cows, though they may need vaccinations to prevent diseases.

If you have a hundred acres and a million cows, there will be no grass or little cows. You will have a feedlot. Your herd will require mass dosing with drugs to prevent pandemic disease outbreaks. All food will need to be brought in. The cows that aren't butchered within a couple of months will start dying anyway.

Now which of these would be considered most 'sustainable' long-term (especially if you happen to be a cow)?


okay, try this one....

A few seasons of mild weather with lower-than-average bugs.. and the trees and brush in Green Valley give real meaning to its name... The deer breed like rabbits... Eco-tourists revel in the Nature of it all.

Now there's a dry winter, a dry spring, a hot dry summer, a hot dry fall... all those deer ate all that brush and it's winter again and the deer are starving.

Well-meaning 'animal lovers' rent helicopters and drop hay bales.... Hay is for horses, sometimes for cows. Deer don't eat it 'cause they don't know how.

Some say there should have been more hunting permits issued to thin the herd.

Others state that this tragedy would never have happened if we hadn't got rid of the wolves......



to be continued.

[Markcb750]

And who doesn't understand floating ice?

They don't know who they are, but it is obvious to those who see them.