Must see: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Voodoo-king]

Quote from TGregg:

Not correct. Strange as it may seem, freezing water does not increase mass. An iceberg displaces the same amount of water that is frozen in it.

Here's a fun experiement you can do at home. Take a glass and fill it with chunks of ice. Top it off with water, to the very top of the glass. Let it melt. The water level will stay the same (except for a tiny bit of loss due to evaporation).

In other words, melting icebergs do not alter ocean levels, either up or down.

I will try the experiment, but from wikipedia:

An unusual fact of ice frozen at a pressure of one atmosphere is that the solid is some 8% less dense than liquid water. Therefore, water is one of the few substances to expand when it freezes. Ice has a density of 0.917 g/cm³ at 0 °C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature.

But I think ur right, freezing water does not increase its mass, it’s the same water with the same elements. However it should take up more space when freezed because of the decreased density. But im speculating, I better just try the experience and find out for myself..

 

[TGregg]

Quote from Voodoo-king:

I will try the experiment, but from wikipedia:

An unusual fact of ice frozen at a pressure of one atmosphere is that the solid is some 8% less dense than liquid water. Therefore, water is one of the few substances to expand when it freezes. Ice has a density of 0.917 g/cm³ at 0 °C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature.

But I think ur right, freezing water does not increase its mass, it’s the same water with the same elements. However it should take up more space when freezed because of the decreased density. But im speculating, I better just try the experience and find out for myself..

I know I'm right, it's basic physics. The iceberg is not as dense as water, which is why it floats. Any ship builder will tell you a boat will displace an amount of water equal to the mass of the boat. Put more cargo on a boat, it sinks further into the water (AKA displaces more). Offload some cargo, and the boat rises in the water.

It's the same thing for floating chunks of frozen water.

Further, if freezing water added mass, that'd be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

BTW if you really want to see something interesting, apply constant heat to a frozen test tube of water and measure the tempature over time. Start at say 0 F. You'll see the temp climb at a steady rate, then stop climbing as your ice melts. Changing state from solid to liquid takes a surprising amount of energy. Once it's liquid, the tempature starts to climb again.

This is why we put ice in our drinks to keep them cold. The heat they absorb while solid is small compared to how much heat they use up as they melt.

 

[fhl]

Don't be alarmed, but the planet is getting hotter. According to the latest computer models, surface air temperatures rose by 1.17 degrees Fahrenheit just between the 1970s and the '90s. Earlier estimates had the Earth warming by 1.33 degrees over an entire century.

Hey, we told you not to be alarmed. It's Mars that's warming--"four times faster than Earth," according to Agence France-Presse.*

*from opinionjournal.com

 

[atozcom]

Quote from TGregg:

I know I'm right, it's basic physics. The iceberg is not as dense as water, which is why it floats. Any ship builder will tell you a boat will displace an amount of water equal to the mass of the boat. Put more cargo on a boat, it sinks further into the water (AKA displaces more). Offload some cargo, and the boat rises in the water.

It's the same thing for floating chunks of frozen water.

Further, if freezing water added mass, that'd be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

BTW if you really want to see something interesting, apply constant heat to a frozen test tube of water and measure the tempature over time. Start at say 0 F. You'll see the temp climb at a steady rate, then stop climbing as your ice melts. Changing state from solid to liquid takes a surprising amount of energy. Once it's liquid, the tempature starts to climb again.

This is why we put ice in our drinks to keep them cold. The heat they absorb while solid is small compared to how much heat they use up as they melt.

It is a waste of time to explain physics to global warming people.

If the global warming people understand physics, or want to understand physics, would there be global warming people? I don't think so.

 

[dcraig]

Another couple of pages of utter nonsense posted on this thread.

You can drop ice cubes into a glass of water and measure the displacement as much as you like, but it is irrelevant because by far the largest mass of ice is on the Antarctic continent and not currently displacing sea water. Should a significant portion melt, the sea level will rise.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from atozcom:

It is a waste of time to explain physics to global warming people.

If the global warming people understand physics, or want to understand physics, would there be global warming people? I don't think so.

And you are the person to do it ? Unlike most of those posting here, I actually have a degree in physics, but I would not be so arrogant or stupid as to think I could "explain physics" to thousands to practising scientists.

 

[neophyte321]

Quote from dcraig:

And you are the person to do it ? Unlike most of those posting here, I actually have a degree in physics, but I would not be so arrogant or stupid as to think I could "explain physics" to thousands to practising scientists.

What is your opinion, is Man induced Global warming primarily Science or Politics? There is such thing as Political Science, but it has nothing to do with climatology.

If you answered science, my only suggestion would be to actually watch the documentary. If it is wrong on every other point, it does one thing accurately, that is, eliminate the talk of consensus. If you disagree, then you should reevaluate whether you are arrogant or stupid as to think you could explain climatology to practising climatologists.

Global warming will some day be up there with the loch-ness monster, that's my hunch.

As for the people who suggest that "if it could be happening, then we should act like it is happening" .... I won't dignify. The markets will prevail in delivering more efficient energy sources, not some group of lunatic politicians. I think temperatures really started increasing only after Gore shaved his beard, that thing was probably trapping lots of hot air.

 

[atozcom]

A physics degree is not needed to understand all the BS in Global Warming.

All you need is common sense to see through the big holes in the Global Warming "consensus" Swiss Cheese. However, common sense is a rare commodity now-a-day.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from atozcom:

A physics degree is not needed to understand all the BS in Global Warming.

All you need is common sense to see through the big holes in the Global Warming "consensus" Swiss Cheese. However, common sense is a rare commodity now-a-day.

Well, you and your fellow travellers on this thread are claiming some knowledge of physics that is by some strange mechanism, unavailable to most climate scientists. It really is a low grade attempt at propaganda.

 

[atozcom]

Quote from dcraig:

Well, you and your fellow travellers on this thread are claiming some knowledge of physics that is by some strange mechanism, unavailable to most climate scientists. It really is a low grade attempt at propaganda.

This is from Wikipedia:

..Climatology studies the frequency and trends of those (weather) systems. It studies the periodicity of weather events over years to millennia, as well as changes in long-term average weather patterns, in relation to atmospheric conditions.

This is basically using historical data to explain past weather occurrence. Ever heard of technical analysis of price charts in trading? Anybody ever heard of curve fitting? This is about as accurate as the weatherman predict that it is going to rain 2 month from today.

You may be able to explain the pass but predicting the future in a complex global system is wild ass guesstimate and not reliable. As least not reliable enough to be the reason to make an entire country to change its future life style.

Climate scientists may or may not know about the relevant physics behind the so call Global warming cause and effects. Or that they may choose to ignore it. Of course knowing physics and know how to apply the knowledge of physic and explain daily life or other branch of science is two different thing.

The simpleton who think melting Polar or Antarctica ice would cause rising sea level make a lot of sense until the physicist come in and say otherwise.