|
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
What three masses? All oceans and (almost) all seas are part of the same single body of water....You can't affect one, without affecting them all by the same amount. Which is why Antarctic glacial meltwater, creates global sealevel rise. I.e. raises the sealevel at a location like ours in Southport.
Btw, heat any water (even in a test tube) and the level will always rise. Works every time - you cannae change the laws of nature!
Told you that you would find it confusing. All bodies of water are comprised of three main masses or layers depending on Temperature and Salinity and various mixes of chemicals. The oceans may form one mass of water, but they differ in elevation, temperature, salinity etc.,The Pacific Ocean is at a higher level than the Atlantic Ocean. The North Atlantic is higher than the South Atlantic, while the North Pacific is higher than the Pacific Ocean. The North Atlantic is the warmest and saltiest of the oceans, the South Atlantic is the coldest and the densest. The North Pacific is the least salty and the least densest. Possibly due to latitude points.
Due to the composition and temperatures of the masses of water - only the densest surface waters of the Pacific pass through to the Atlantic while the lighter waters from lower latitudes of the South Atlantic pass to the south of Africa. So for ice to be placed in any of the oceans, all these facts would have to be taken into consideration as to where the melted water would end up.
Yes hot water will rise, the more heat it absorbs the more it will rise until it turns into steam or water vapour. This water vapour will continue to rise to create the water cycle that in turn forms rain, snow or hail which then returns to the surface of the Earth.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
-
Originally Posted by Kritou
Sound of silence .....?
ermm...interesting debate....all i can say is that since the sixties you rarely see the sea in southport nowadays...(also a dw gym member you get a good view from the running machine) i can remember the coast road regularly flooded in the old days with the lord st cellars also flooded regulary in the seventies.....if sea levels have risen it must be somewhere else...we now have brushwood growing on the coast beach from the pier to the plough when it used to be under water....iv been skiing in the alps since the seventies and the snow has never been better or bigger for longer...the vikings grew wheat crops in greenland that is now under ice,,the romans had vineyards in yorkshire...the earth plates are contantly shifting with the northern hemisphere rising and the southern sinking.....so the world is in constant flux...nothing is constant...riding your bike or driving an electric car will make zero difference....the planet will keep changing whatever we do
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
said liked this post
-
Originally Posted by local
Errh sorry to interrupt this science fest but
"ice is compacted water" ???? Post 31
that does turn the scientific world on its head.
"Its part of my field and studied in depth" !
Hmm ..................
God! Don't add to it! This is difficult enough to explain as it is - If I added expansions of ice and salinity content into the issue, that would need even more details to be added.
All that was needed to illustrate, was the fact that water which forms the ice has to come from somewhere, and when the ice melts it changes back into a liquid and also has to go somewhere. But it is not a new production - it has always been present on the planet. Ice melt does not increase ocean levels greater to that which they were. I was attempting to explain that ice was formed from the existing water.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by seivad
A field covered in manure?
What local is referring to, is a more detailed description of ice formation and three states of water according to temperature. Most liquids contract when they are cooled due to molecular activity and when they reach freezing point they solidify and contract further but water is unusual in that it does not behave in this same way. When liquid water is cooled, it does contract slightly - but when it reaches to around 4 degrees C, it expands a bit. When it reaches its freezing point it expands considerably more. This behaviour is due to the structure of water molecules, where each hydrogen atom is aligned with two oxygen atoms. The hydrogen bonding strength increases as the temperature reduces because there is less thermal energy to free the bonding.
Local was questioning the very general description of 'compacting water' that I had used as an over simplification.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by seivad
How did I miss this beauty? A colleague of yours... so now you're a geologist? Although I've always thought you have rocks in your head, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Next you'll be telling us that you are also affiliated with the Heartland Institute, and, like your colleague Easterbrook, you're often a guest speaker at this dubiously funded think tank. All this flitting to and fro across the Atlantic must be exhausting. Plus gallivanting across Europe for months on end. What a man!
As for Easterbrook, he's often been discredited, a bit like you really. Clicky below.
Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
The Incorrigible Easterbrook
Well! Of course, you would know a lot more on the subject. Did you know also that Stephen Hawkins was criticised on his work by a large number of scientists, not wishful members of the public who do not have a clue!
The links you have given relate to those wishful members of the public a report by Graham Hancock, which was repeated in a number of publications - is rather a charlatan in the scientific world
"An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals.Wikipedia
The second link you give relates to reports by a gardener who uses various media reports to create a gossip page in an American journal.
Easterbrook has spent many decades on his studies - he has absolutely no reason, nor desire to prove one side or the other of the argument - he is dedicated to his work and has successfully responded to several scientific panels of professionals.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
I cannot see that DA's views would be enlightening at all. He is a Natural Historian - not a Climatologist, and I doubt that he has done much research into climate as it is not his field.
It is more than likely the BBC have asked his views on the result that a warming climate would have on ecosystems etc.,
The so called climate change is nothing different to that which the planet has experienced previously, evidenced by ancient settlements, early sea faring records, dendro-chronology, fossils, movement of ice plains etc., The whole of Europe was once a tropical area while at another time it was mainly covered in ice, while many of today's deserts were once luscious jungles and tides have risen and ebbed to carve the land form it has at present.
The Earth is 4.5. billion years old - life on the planet has been dated to around 4 billion years. Natural extinction is a course of nature where weaker species make way for stronger species. There is also mention of the Earth constantly moving out away from the Sun every year.
Climate change, as opposed to weather changes, are due to energy exchange on Earth. These occur regularly and as part of nature of the universe - for example, the water cycle of earth contributes 60% of 'greenhouse' gases to the atmosphere. Volcanoes issue 'greenhouse' gases into the atmosphere. Aerosols are claimed to be the cause of most of the harmful effects of 'Global Warming' - they have not yet identified exactly what constitutes an 'Aerosol' but it does include volcanic gases, dust from the deserts and sea salt. Man made aerosols - only a minor few are considered dangerous - contain air, that is already on the planet, chemicals found on the planet or in the atmosphere already and that by natural events mix in the course.
Global warming tax - is money that you are paying for being born on the planet Earth.
Good to read a sensible post on this issue instead of the usual attempts to whip up hysteria over something over which we have no control. Was it King Canute who thought he could change nature? Climates have always changed - and always will. How do the voices of doom explain what caused climate change before the industrial revolution? Greenland was, no doubt,green once and might well be again at some point in the future. Fear is a means of control and there is never a shortage of "scientists/experts" who are prepared to give a view on future climate disasters whilst they are able to pick up lucrative grants for their work.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by thediscovolante
ermm...interesting debate....all i can say is that since the sixties you rarely see the sea in southport nowadays...(also a dw gym member you get a good view from the running machine) i can remember the coast road regularly flooded in the old days with the lord st cellars also flooded regulary in the seventies.....if sea levels have risen it must be somewhere else...we now have brushwood growing on the coast beach from the pier to the plough when it used to be under water....iv been skiing in the alps since the seventies and the snow has never been better or bigger for longer...the vikings grew wheat crops in greenland that is now under ice,,the romans had vineyards in yorkshire...the earth plates are contantly shifting with the northern hemisphere rising and the southern sinking.....so the world is in constant flux...nothing is constant...riding your bike or driving an electric car will make zero difference....the planet will keep changing whatever we do
The tides are likely to disappear even further out - according to the Sefton Coast publication:
"While some areas of the coastline are accreting, others are being eroded.The coastline at Southport and Birkdale continues to accrete, with increasingcoastal salt marsh and dune development and rising beach levels. Whilethis natural development gives rise to concerns at Southport from a tourismand amenity perspective, the accretion is providing an additional level ofcoastal protection. At Formby Point erosion predominates (with sand beingmoved both southwards and northwards) and the current policy is to allowthe dune crest to ‘roll back’ in response to erosion thus maintaining a highdune barrier offering continued protection to the community of Formby.The Hightown Frontage is eroding."
i.e more build up on the shoreline = water further out!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
Well! Of course, you would know a lot more on the subject. Did you know also that Stephen Hawkins was criticised on his work by a large number of scientists, not wishful members of the public who do not have a clue!
Unlike your good self, I don't claim to know a lot about the subject. All I have done is Googled certain topics, much the same as you have done. There's one thing I do know though, it's Stephen Hawking, not Hawkins.
The links you have given relate to those wishful members of the public a report by Graham Hancock, which was repeated in a number of publications - is rather a charlatan in the scientific world
Where do you get the name Graham Hancock on the Skeptical Science link? It's not on the article, nor is he on their team.
https://skepticalscience.com/team.php
Endorsements by scientists.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/endorsements.shtml
The second link you give relates to reports by a gardener who uses various media reports to create a gossip page in an American journal.
New Zealand
Easterbrook has spent many decades on his studies - he has absolutely no reason, nor desire to prove one side or the other of the argument - he is dedicated to his work and has successfully responded to several scientific panels of professionals.
He's well paid to prove one side.
Anyway, how do you know him?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by duncet
Good to read a sensible post on this issue instead of the usual attempts to whip up hysteria over something over which we have no control. Was it King Canute who thought he could change nature? Climates have always changed - and always will. How do the voices of doom explain what caused climate change before the industrial revolution? Greenland was, no doubt,green once and might well be again at some point in the future. Fear is a means of control and there is never a shortage of "scientists/experts" who are prepared to give a view on future climate disasters whilst they are able to pick up lucrative grants for their work.
How can any of us laymen state with authority that climate change is a hoax? You're not a scientist, neither am I, neither is Said. We all tend to read the reports that favour our side of the argument. That said, aren't the great majority of scientists in agreement that climate change is real?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
Told you that you would find it confusing. All bodies of water are comprised of three main masses or layers depending on Temperature and Salinity and various mixes of chemicals. The oceans may form one mass of water, but they differ in elevation, temperature, salinity etc.,The Pacific Ocean is at a higher level than the Atlantic Ocean. The North Atlantic is higher than the South Atlantic, while the North Pacific is higher than the Pacific Ocean. The North Atlantic is the warmest and saltiest of the oceans, the South Atlantic is the coldest and the densest. The North Pacific is the least salty and the least densest. Possibly due to latitude points.
Due to the composition and temperatures of the masses of water - only the densest surface waters of the Pacific pass through to the Atlantic while the lighter waters from lower latitudes of the South Atlantic pass to the south of Africa. So for ice to be placed in any of the oceans, all these facts would have to be taken into consideration as to where the melted water would end up.
Substituting the odd word and changing the composition doesn't hide the fact that once again you're plagiarising.
Stop pretending you're a scientist and credit the sources you use.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...46631361900442
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
I'm quite happy to acknowledge that the world is highly polluted and we need to change but others need to change more.
Climate change is something of a data herring which gets cooked by whoever wants to make a point.
Whatever the data says the world is under siege from pollution and we need to sort it.
Pretentious actresses jetting over from LA and changing into dungarees to pontificate to the worlds media does not help,
she would have been far better staying in LA and speaking out there.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
What local is referring to, is a more detailed description of ice formation and three states of water according to temperature. Most liquids contract when they are cooled due to molecular activity and when they reach freezing point they solidify and contract further but water is unusual in that it does not behave in this same way. When liquid water is cooled, it does contract slightly - but when it reaches to around 4 degrees C, it expands a bit. When it reaches its freezing point it expands considerably more. This behaviour is due to the structure of water molecules, where each hydrogen atom is aligned with two oxygen atoms. The hydrogen bonding strength increases as the temperature reduces because there is less thermal energy to free the bonding.
Local was questioning the very general description of 'compacting water' that I had used as an over simplification.
So you decided to investigate further, and plagiarise again.
http://www.iapws.org/faq1/freeze.html
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by seivad
Ha!Ha! I think it is called grasping at straws! So far you have tried to deny everything that I have said, and reviled World experts on their knowledge and expertise - and now you accuse me of using values which are available in all public works on that topic. Hell, I cannot even remember the details of my own thesis without looking them up again.
That is fine by me - I don't care what you believe, of me personally - or of Global Warming as that is what the general public are meant to believe and you are not alone. To question Global Warming you do have to have a scientific background and be capable of critical thinking.
However, I am not alone either. You probably won't believe it - but the late Professor Frederick Seitz sent out a petition and received 31,487 USA Scientists signatures, 9,029 of whom are PhD professionals to support the fact that the claim for Global Warming is not only false but harmful
"31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth." Copied and pasted as this is an actual statement from Prof. Seitz.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
Ha!Ha! I think it is called grasping at straws! So far you have tried to deny everything that I have said, and reviled World experts on their knowledge and expertise - and now you accuse me of using values which are available in all public works on that topic. Hell, I cannot even remember the details of my own thesis without looking them up again.
I think it's called "I see right through you", and I'm certainly not alone.
However, I am not alone either. You probably won't believe it - but the late Professor Frederick Seitz sent out a petition and received 31,487 USA Scientists signatures, 9,029 of whom are PhD professionals to support the fact that the claim for Global Warming is not only false but harmful
" 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth." Copied and pasted as this is an actual statement from Prof. Seitz.
Yes I believe it. Many of the signatories were investigated and found to be unqualified or phony... Dr Geri Halliwell?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30...limate-change/
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
Oooh! Couldn't you sleep? That been on your mind all night has it? No need to checkup on anything - it is part of my field and studied in depth! Now you can go back to sleep.
It's a pity, but unfortunately a fact of life, that there are still many climate deniers like yourself around. And before you ask, no I am not a scientist. I just happen to take notice of the people who are experts, of which at least 95% say that humans are to blame for climate change.
Fortunately the pendulum is slowly swinging against the likes of you, and in time (how long I don't know) governments will be making a more concerted effort for change. Needless to say improvements in technology will help enormously.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
UK,
UK News,
|