1  2  |   Order by index

Nov 11, 2004, 3:35pm

On cnn's science page today they are covering this global warming thing.
The very last 2 paragraphs say the following:


The report projects that temperatures in the Arctic will rise by 4 to 7
degrees Celsius (8 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) in the next 100 years. If
temperatures then stayed stable, the Greenland icecap would melt altogether
in 1,000 years and raise global sea levels by about seven meters (23 ft).

The thaw of the icecap floating on the Arctic Ocean does not affect sea
levels, in the same way that a full glass of water with an ice cube jutting
above the brim does not spill when the ice melts since ice takes up more
space than water.

Now....my questions is......

If the ice cube takes up more water space...when the caps melt...wouldn't
that lower the sea levels?

Just curious:)

Nov 11, 2004, 3:48pm

Ice cubes are comprised of frozen water yes, but also air and dust
particles. So even tho they take up more space, the water content is the
same. So no, when an ice cube melts it's the same amount of water it was
before. That water being added to the water already existing, such as
oceans, will raise the water level.

LNH



--

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 3:48pm

sounds like to me if the ice melts then there will be more water therefore
raising the water level hummm wonder how long till this is deleted



[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 3:54pm

No - it is a common misconception,

Such melting would only account for a minimal increase, however:

If the world temperature increased, then a large amount of that extra energy
would transfer into the ocean, and as time went on the heat would propagate
downwards.

The more energy then the faster and further the molecules of water vibrate
around their position increasing the distance between them.

Because the ocean is a finite space, this means that the only way for it to
occupy a greater volume caused by the expansion would be for its upper
surface to rise, hence causing the water levels to rise.

To put an example on it, you all know how mercury expands in a thermometer
when it gets hotter? Well although water doesnt expand as much as mercury,
imagine it on a scale of the trillions of litres of water in the ocean and
then think "oh shite...".

- Mark R

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 4:53pm

ooooooooo shite!!!


[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 5:03pm

now only if we where water based lifeforms capable of evolution...

while we may not be getting gills anytime soon...my point is our evolution
is currently based off of technology...then you realise we are capable of
doing many things to prevent it :) whther it be making a giant fridge in the
arctic...to cool it (not literally a fridge). or whehter it would beto raise
our land...whether by building supports and raising cities...or making our
own plates above the current ones (a la Final fantasy 7, or Futurama (take
your pick))
[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 5:04pm

To my knowledge water is the only liquid which EXPANDS (quite a bit) when
frozen - most liquids contract. This is what makes ice float (which is very
good news for fish, bad news for the guy who forgets the beer in the fridge)

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8a.html


I think what they are saying is that when the ice formed it floated -
because of bouyancy, and when it melts - it simply goes back to the original
state because of displacement. This would mean the Greenland Cap meltwater
would not cause the ocean level to rise, but it would also mean that there
would be no icecap surface above the water. This is bad for Eskimos, polar
bears, seals, fish and bacteria. Who knows what it might mean for ocean
current and weather patterns as well as the foodchain.

So if the Earth only had "floating" icecaps the sealevel would not rise
merely because the "floating" ice melted, nor would it go down. But bad
things would most likely would happen. Of course, the icemelt from the
South Pole, since it is not floating but sits on Antartica and is MUCH
larger in mass - would cause the sealevel to rise quite a bit. Unless they
are figuring that the South Pole is upside down so it doesn't really
count...


:)

E

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 5:08pm

yeah... they forgot to mention that didn't they...

CNN "SCIENCE FOR THE MASSES"

E



[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 5:10pm

I thought the theory of evolution is based only on biology - not technology

E


[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 5:24pm

[View Quote] ...... hummm wonder how long till this is deleted
>

You are deleted :)


--
Andras
"It's MY computer" (tm Steve Gibson)

Nov 11, 2004, 5:47pm

IMHO, we should ask grover.


[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 6:00pm

Survival of the fittest... or who has the biggest tanks.

- MR

Nov 11, 2004, 6:02pm

it is however in order for a species to evolve a mutation of a gene must
occur which causes a trait that is helpful to survive...if said trait
survives then it is passed on to generations (evolution) now in our society
if someoen has a disease ofr a sickness because of those mutations they are
suppsoed to die off...however we cure their disease and their trait is
passed on ruining evolution entirely...(Ex: sycle cell anemia, diabetis...or
coronary heart disease).

Now in our modern society we use technology to replace things we donot
usually have or cannot get..so evolution of our species is based solely on
technology...lol :)
[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 6:05pm

or those with best medical care...or biggets nukes (so ko)
[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 6:09pm

Would you trust something like CNN to explain properly? BBC Science and
Discovery all the way :)

- MR

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 6:21pm

Nukes are irrelevant, as soon as one is fired its all over, everyone dies.

- MR

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 6:29pm

I think he was the guy who forgot his beer.rwx


:)



[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 6:32pm

but if it's mutations you are looking for...

E



[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 6:42pm

fine *chanegs funny quip*

its not the size of the tank that cvounts its how you use it?

or its the quality of the missles? idk
[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 6:43pm

During the cold war Russia and the USSR developed a lot of miniture nuclear
/ radioactive systems, one of which was a device (the size of a shopping
trolley) containing an amount of radioactive material to which the seeds of
crops were passed under before being planted based on research showing how
it increased yield.

It was effective, however it caused several mutations in children born to
parents who had worked with the devices for a few years.

- MR

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 6:47pm

Wasn't that the episode with the tomacco plants?

E



:P


[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 7:11pm

>_< I havent slept for 30 horus dont expect me to remember everything,

all i remember at the mo is it was on a BBC documentary on the risk from
dirty bombs.

- MR

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 7:30pm

this taste horrible...can i have another?

>_< of course rick is a simpsons fan...i am so sending season 4's dvd to awi
hq...
[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 7:40pm

A big clown on the NG's you
--
Syntax
SW City at AW 2217s 3610e
www.swcity.net

[View Quote]

Nov 11, 2004, 9:18pm

The Day After Tomorrow deserves a CY.

Nov 12, 2004, 12:48am

That was The Simpsons episode where they buy a farm as an excuse to get outa
town for awhile...and Homer spreads rods from the power plant around the
field :D

*is one of those simpsons fans who's prolly seen every ep a few times*

[View Quote]

Nov 12, 2004, 1:10am

Het SW Comit,

Have you seen the talk show ummmmm..."Inside The Actor's Studio" Where all
of the actors who do the voices for all of the Simpsons were on?
I think it's on Public Broadcasting Station?
Excellent show!


[View Quote]

Nov 12, 2004, 1:13am

[View Quote] No, it was because Homer was challenging everyone to a duel I think.

Nov 12, 2004, 1:17am

oops...it was Bravo Tv....
http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/videos/The_Cast_of_The_Simpsons.shtml


[View Quote]

Nov 12, 2004, 1:20am

[View Quote] We're the first species to take care of our sick and weak. Our greatest
advantage is that. Taking care of the sick and weak increases our
likely hood to survive because of them carrying a rare gene that may be
beneficial in the future. A small price to pay now for the extension of
our species.

It's still survival of the fittest, we're just the only species capable
of making our weak extremely fit for survival. This stems back to the
family units caring for their sick (blind/deaf) for example. Maybe more
or less not to do with technology but more based on our morality and
empathy as a people. Some societies are less akin to this though, for
example, some of our communities have national health care (almost all
"civilized" nations have this in one form or another), some leave their
elderly to die once the leader of that family is dead (some Native
American traditions are like this), it's all based on society.

We're the only species that's able to alter our own genetic makeup as
well. This is one of the major issues for debate today. Should we
further research into this field to cure diseases? Should we sacrifice
embryonic life (already dead embryonic life mind you) to get the data we
need to cure things such as cancer, diabeties, renal failure, et al.?

1  2  |   Order by index