Argument: "If the ice on just the polar seas melted, it would raise sea level by 3 feet."

Truth: This totally ignores the physics of floating bodies. A floating body displaces its weight. A submerged body displaces its volume. But if the floating ice melted, it would still displace the same amount of water, because it is water...

I don't have time to go through your bull shit.. but this I instantly found as stupid, You know nothing about physics.. you are a complete dunce. Water is a strange substance in which it's solid form is less dense than it's liquid form.. This property is one in which helps us live on this planet. An ice cube takes up more volume than it's equivalent liquid form. Idiot.. my brother in second grade knows that. Will you please stop posting... everything you post is stupid.

commented: ha ha..nice reply +2

I don't have time to go through your bull shit.. but this I instantly found as stupid, You know nothing about physics.. you are a complete dunce. Water is a strange substance in which it's solid form is less dense than it's liquid form.. This property is one in which helps us live on this planet. An ice cube takes up more volume than it's equivalent liquid form. Idiot.. my brother in second grade knows that. Will you please stop posting... everything you post is stupid.

I TEACH physics.

The fact that water is a strange substance does not change the physics of floating bodies. I can even show you the molecular structures that cause this.

The solid form being less dense is what makes it float. Thus, it displaces its weight in water, not its volume. That's why part of the ice sticks up out of the water. Look this up in a physics book.

When a mass of ice melts, it weighs exactly the same as it did before (because it has the same number of atoms in it). But now it is part of the water, instead of sticking up above it. The water level doesn't change when floating ice melts.

If you don't believe me, try an experiment we have done in class. Put some ice cubes in a large diameter glass, but not enough that the cubes touch the glass all around (so the surface tension of water on the ice doesn't mess up your measurement). Draw a line with a grease pencil showing the water level. Cover the glass, so evaporation doesn't lower the water level and make you think that melting lowers the water level. Wait for the ice to melt, then check the water level against the mark. It won't change.

Parroting false liberal doctrine shows a lack of knowledge.

Here is another exercise taken from the book:

While a cargo ship loaded with scrap iron was in a lock on a canal, the crew discovered that the captain had gambled away their wages. So they threw all of the scrap iron overboard into the lock. During this period, none of the lock doors or valves were open, so no water entered or left the lock.

Q: Did the water level in the lock, measured with a scale painted on the wall of the lock, rise, stay the same, or fall?

A: The water level sank.

Why?

A floating object displaces its weight in an equivalent weight of water. So when the iron was in the ship, the ship displaced its own weight, plus the weight of the iron.

A sunken object displaces its volume of water. Since iron is much more dense than water, it displaces less water when it is sunken. The ship now displaces its own weight,but without the weight if the iron. But the iron displaces only its own volume.

So the water level in the lock falls, but the ship floats higher as measured by marks on the side of the ship.

You humans are more destructive than you all think. That will be your undoing.

Global warming is real.

Deal with it.

commented: Evidence of causation? A naturally occuring warming cycle has nothing to do with humankind, and such cycles are known in history. +3

You humans ....

And what are you ? Some sort of alien from a galaxy far far away ? Yes, most people agree global warming is real. The dispute is whether mankind is helping it along or is it just a natural and recurring occurence. Golbal warming would be occuring even if there were no humans alive right now. We are living in a very calm time in Earth's history and it could change for the worse very quickly and without much notice. There is not a thing we can do about it.

For people who does not believe in global warming and sea level rising, in india, two island vanished in the bay of bengal, near sunderban few months ago, around 7000 people were living in those island, they are the first global warming refugee, in few years this number will increase to millions !!

Maybe those islands just simply sank. Isn't that's what is happening to Venice.

I think the trick here is that water expands as it warms up.

As for the contribution of melting ice, it would only be the ice on land that would raise the sea levels.

I am surprised that they teach physics in elementary school already.

Everybody here is sort of missing the point. It is sort of useless to try to figure out who is to blame for global warming (man or nature); it's more important to answer two questions:

Is global warming good or bad. Everyone seems to automatically buy in to the assumtion that global warming is bad. Maybe it's not. In that case, maybe we want to create more of it. Maybe not.

If we assume that global warming is bad, and I'm talking catastrophically bad, then is there anything we can do about it?

I know the liberal pat answer to this, but it's the same sort of stupid "Chicken Little" logic that created this whole flap in the first place.

My thought is that maybe we should spend more time looking for evidence than in creating specious arguments based on a sprinkling of facts about a subject that is more complex than most of us imagine.

Well, if my house will be beach front property in the near future, than global warming is good!

Maybe those islands just simply sank. Isn't that's what is happening to Venice.

They did. It's what happens to coral islands over time. The weight of the island gets to be too much and it slowly collapses in on itself.
Evidence for this happening in the past has been found all over the Pacific, but of course the greenies aren't going to tell you that.

Just like they're not going to tell you that the energy output of the sun has increased so much that the planet should have gotten warmer at a greater rate than it actually has, that Mars has indeed gotten warmer at a greater rate than the earth (and that it's been postulated that that increased solar output is to blame for that).

Nor are they going to tell you that the climate of this here dirtball has been going through warm and cold cycles for billions of years, and that the cold cycles usually last far far longer than the warm ones, nor that we're currently in such a warm cycle and at the latter stages of one, in a period that's historically marked by highly unstable climate conditions.

Let me recapitulate, sun's energy output increases, coral grows heavier, heavier island sinks, perfect logic, I shall buy a dozen of these arguments right now!

I TEACH physics.

You teach physics? Well I sure hope it isn't anywhere in america.. I feel bad for your students.. once they take a REAL physics course then they will be behind everyone else.

The fact of the matter is you blatantly said that the volume of ice is equal to the same mass of liquid water. This is FALSE!

Truth: The volume of ice must be greater than the same mass of liquid water.

Here is an experiment for your dumbass to do: Make some ice cubes, you will notice that the ice takes up more space than the water. Put a coke in the freezer.. the water expands and the can will burst.

Perhaps you should just go kill yourself because you obviously know nothing about physics at all. You are an idiot, and the world would be a much better place without you.

commented: Argumentum ad hominem, anyone? +3

You teach physics? Well I sure hope it isn't anywhere in america.. I feel bad for your students.. once they take a REAL physics course then they will be behind everyone else.

The fact of the matter is you blatantly said that the volume of ice is equal to the same mass of liquid water. This is FALSE!

Truth: The volume of ice must be greater than the same mass of liquid water.

Here is an experiment for your dumbass to do: Make some ice cubes, you will notice that the ice takes up more space than the water. Put a coke in the freezer.. the water expands and the can will burst.

Perhaps you should just go kill yourself because you obviously know nothing about physics at all. You are an idiot, and the world would be a much better place without you.

Are you done throwing your childish temper tantrum? I assume you are calling this perfect English? Actually it stinks!

For people who does not believe in global warming and sea level rising, in india, two island vanished in the bay of bengal, near sunderban few months ago, around 7000 people were living in those island, they are the first global warming refugee, in few years this number will increase to millions !!

Sea levels have supposedly only risen by 1cm at most. Unless those islands where only 1cm over sea level i would say that there was another cause for those islands disapearing.

You teach physics? Well I sure hope it isn't anywhere in america.. I feel bad for your students.. once they take a REAL physics course then they will be behind everyone else.

The fact of the matter is you blatantly said that the volume of ice is equal to the same mass of liquid water. This is FALSE!

Truth: The volume of ice must be greater than the same mass of liquid water.

Here is an experiment for your dumbass to do: Make some ice cubes, you will notice that the ice takes up more space than the water. Put a coke in the freezer.. the water expands and the can will burst.

Perhaps you should just go kill yourself because you obviously know nothing about physics at all. You are an idiot, and the world would be a much better place without you.

I went to look for the entire posting that MidiMagic wrote. I couldn't find it so I might be wrong, but I don't think so. I think he said (and I'm paraphrasing) "If an object is submerged, it's volume is equal to the volume of the water displaced". This is seminally obvious to anyone who thinks about it. It doesn't require a physicist or a physics teacher to figure it out. I think that your rage prevented you from reading what was actually written. But then I could be wrong.

Anyhow, please refrain from personal insults and demeaning language. It just makes you seem ignorant (at least that's my opinion).

Hoppy

The fact of the matter is you blatantly said that the volume of ice is equal to the same mass of liquid water. This is FALSE!

Truth: The volume of ice must be greater than the same mass of liquid water.

That is true. But because the ice is FLOATING on water, the extra volume is the part sticking up into the AIR. 90 percent of a floating piece of ice is below the water level, but the other 10 percent is sticking up into the air. A floating body will displace its weight in water, with the rest of the volume of the floating body sticking up into the air. Otherwise, we couldn't have boats.

What I said was that AFTER IT MELTS, the water that used to be ice displaces the same amount of water that it displaced when it was ice. The extra volume in the ice displaces air, not water.

Here is an experiment for your (naughty bits deleted) to do: Make some ice cubes, you will notice that the ice takes up more space than the water. Put a coke in the freezer.. the water expands and the can will burst.

Now drop that ice into water, and notice how much of the ice sticks up above the surface of the water. It's EXACTLY the extra volume the ice has over that of the same mass of liquid water.

commented: Good job on being patient and explaining. +12

That is true. But because the ice is FLOATING on water, the extra volume is the part sticking up into the AIR. 90 percent of a floating piece of ice is below the water level, but the other 10 percent is sticking up into the air. A floating body will displace its weight in water, with the rest of the volume of the floating body sticking up into the air. Otherwise, we couldn't have boats.

What I said was that AFTER IT MELTS, the water that used to be ice displaces the same amount of water that it displaced when it was ice. The extra volume in the ice displaces air, not water.

Now drop that ice into water, and notice how much of the ice sticks up above the surface of the water. It's EXACTLY the extra volume the ice has over that of the same mass of liquid water.

Well said Midi.

The volume of time wasted with all of this worthless rhetoric is equal to that of the hot air displaced. (Not directed at anyone in particular).

Hoppy

P.S. "and there's a warm wind blowin' " and that's the real cause of it all.

commented: hehe, agreed. +4

Not totally worthless, if you are a "climate" scientist, you can expect a large government grant from the EPA with this type of rhetoric.

Not totally worthless, if you are a "climate" scientist, you can expect a large government grant from the EPA with this type of rhetoric.

Not the EPA, in this case, but you would appear to be correct, Facts notwithstanding, apparently.

Perhaps you should just go kill yourself because you obviously know nothing about physics at all. You are an idiot, and the world would be a much better place without you.

Jeez Josh, forget to take your meds? Do you really think this is warranted over a disagreement in a freaking forum? If you do feel that this vitriol is called for in the context, you probably need to get outside and away from the internet awhile.

commented: Sorry.. I just hate stupid people.. +12

Not the EPA, in this case, but you would appear to be correct, Facts notwithstanding, apparently.

I read the web page you linked to with great interest. I found it very enlightening. I recommend that the others interested in this subject do so as well!!!

Hoppy

Of course, read it knowing that the writer has a bias that becomes increasingly clear toward the end.

Of course, read it knowing that the writer has a bias that becomes increasingly clear toward the end.

<sarcynicism>And the various pro-"Human-caused"-warming crowd are completely bias-free, of course.</sarcynicism>

In general, on a hot-button topic, especially one which is presented in a binary format like this (either it's true or it's untrue), everyone who is interested in it has a bias. The question simply becomes which side's evidence stands the test. Of course, if you've already hardened your mind that one side is correct, you'll tend to see only the other side as biased.

I read the web page you linked to with great interest. I found it very enlightening. I recommend that the others interested in this subject do so as well!!!

Hoppy

Yes, it's worth reading, but also keep seeking out information beyond Orson Scott Card's column and read through a few of his other postings before deciding how much weight you will give him.

Yes, it's worth reading, but also keep seeking out information beyond Orson Scott Card's column and read through a few of his other postings before deciding how much weight you will give him.

Considering that Card's column is simply serving as a second witness to an argument I'd previously seen, I'm willing to give it more weight than you'd probably like. I don't have to agree with him (and having read some of his other works, I'm willing to say that in some cases I don't) for him to be accurate, and my agreeing with him doesn't automatically protect him from inaccuracy. However, if he (or any other individual in this or any other argument) is willing to provide evidence instead of imprecations or "No, you can't see that and no, you can't ask why" comments, then he has a better chance of being believed by those who haven't hardened their minds.

For those who care: 'Hardening' a mind, as I use the term, is the attempt to make it proof against any argument. A closed mind could theoretically be opened by some new evidence; a hardened mind most likely would not be so affected.

Considering that Card's column is simply serving as a second witness to an argument I'd previously seen, I'm willing to give it more weight than you'd probably like. I don't have to agree with him (and having read some of his other works, I'm willing to say that in some cases I don't) for him to be accurate, and my agreeing with him doesn't automatically protect him from inaccuracy. However, if he (or any other individual in this or any other argument) is willing to provide evidence instead of imprecations or "No, you can't see that and no, you can't ask why" comments, then he has a better chance of being believed by those who haven't hardened their minds.

For those who care: 'Hardening' a mind, as I use the term, is the attempt to make it proof against any argument. A closed mind could theoretically be opened by some new evidence; a hardened mind most likely would not be so affected.

I'd call that a fair consideration. I think that particular piece provided some information that is definitely worthy of further attention, so how much weight you want to give it won't find me offended in the least.

My caution about Card is only to encourage actively looking for further information before accepting it as whole truth - which actually could be said for any piece on such a touchy political topic. It's rather depressing that what should be a matter for science to reason out has becomes so distorted to political whim that any actual truths to be had are buried under mountains of motive.

I read the web page you linked to with great interest. I found it very enlightening. I recommend that the others interested in this subject do so as well!!!

Hoppy

Just a follow-up thought...

I said that I found the article enlightening. I did not however say that I found it convincing. I took the article for what it was, a report on fraudulant activity masquerading as science. I have no particular reason to doubt the verasity of Card's account and though it is clear what side of the fence he is on, I did not detect any of the specious arguements that usually accompany those articles whose conclusions go beyond what the evidence implies.

His basic point was, and always has been valid. Mainly, that if you espouse a theory, you should gladly share the evidence (the numbers), gladly share your methods, and gladly share your assumptions so that others can confirm that your theory is true.

And most importantly, that it is the duty of the scientific community to independently verify the findings of anyone who puts forth any theory. That's the way to eliminate cooking of the scientific books.

In this case, the failure of Mann to share all of the evidence immediately suggests that the evidence was either falsified or cherry-picked. His failure to explain anomolies or simply say that he can't explain them, but rather dismiss his critics is, to me, a dead give away that he does not want the whole truth to come out.

Scrutiny has always been the way we are able to arrive at theories that tell us the truth about the world. Why is this global warming stuff any different?

I think we all know the answer to that!

Hoppy

I read the web page you linked to with great interest. I found it very enlightening. I recommend that the others interested in this subject do so as well!!!

Hoppy

Yeah, great find EnderX! Very careful and analytical in its opinions.

Almost looks like this whole "Global Warming" thing might wash us all, not just the US this time, into a "war" we can't win, since the enemy is hypothetical.

I have a question. If anyone knows the answer, I'd like to hear from you. The question is:

1. Is there really more CO2 in the atmosphere than in past years? (I suspect that there is.)

2. Did it get there because of industrial polution and automobiles (which add CO2) or from deforestation (which reduces the vegatation that consume CO2 and produce O2)?

Hoppy