Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

[tina anne]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>"tina anne" Said
"that phyics has already proved that a gallon's worth"
Gallon's worth would represent more than one. What is PHYICS?
WOW with someone that boasts about a higher education needs links to support answer's. Why don't yo do the math your---self and post it so everyone would get the same valuable education that you boast about.

Would you take my word if I just said it was so. Somehow I doubt it and your friend would doubt it even with the link.

As for the math, I did do it myself, and I noticed that even with you demanding I do so that you did not. Care to lead by example?

[PHD]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you take my word if I just said it was so. Somehow I doubt it and your friend would doubt it even with the link.
As for the math, I did do it myself, and I noticed that even with you demanding I do so that you did not. Care to lead by example?

That would be your position to lead by example. Your the only one that boasts about a higher education and yet you display something Less than a Box of Rocks. Now show all your work.

[ChromiuMan]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't quote, calculate. Do the math yourself, think for yourself. That is if you can. Instead of quoting others who are wrong you should do the calculations and quote yourself instead of quoting predictions that are obviously wrong after only a few years.

Alright, then. The Greenland ice sheet is about 1/210 the area of the global water surface and averages 5000 feet thick. Reduce that by 10%(water also varies in density according to its temperature) for the volume of ice compared to the volume of water gives you "water thickness" of about 4500 feet. 210 divided into 4500 = 21.4 feet.(I'll grant that as seawater level rise, the continental slope increases the area of the ocean surface, so I'll go with the 6 meter vs. the 7 meter approximation.) Do you suffer from some infirmity that prohibits you from those same simple calculations?
And again, that does not at all address the rest of the landbound ice - just the Greenland Ice sheet.
Now, I believe I have been entitled to a quote.

"SHADDUP, numbskull!" - Moe Howard

[ChromiuMan]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet a 8.35 block of ice will occupy less volume and a equal weight in water will occupy even less volume.
The question discuss is about volume not mass. And the fact is that phyics has already proved that a gallon's worth of frozen water will not occupy the same volume once it returns to a liquid form.
If I am wrong then show me a creditable source that proves that an equal mass of water will occupy the same amount of volume in both the solid and liquid state. I managed to find one creditable link that proves me right.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/...

Not only are you barking up the wrong tree, you have the tree confused with a sailboat. Landbound ice displaces ZERO ZILCH NADA NO water until it enters a body of water. Even so, if you float a bucket containing either a lb of ice or a lb. of water, both will displace EXACTLY the same volume of water. 2 ships can weigh the same and have a completely different densities - but they still DISPLACE THE SAME tonnage. This is ELEMENTARY, so I'll provide you with a simple link even a grade schooler should be able to understand.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-m...

[PHD]

The Less than a Box of Rocks AKA "tina" is a product of the one child left behind program.

[tina anne]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Alright, then. The Greenland ice sheet is about 1/210 the area of the global water surface and averages 5000 feet thick. Reduce that by 10%(water also varies in density according to its temperature) for the volume of ice compared to the volume of water gives you "water thickness" of about 4500 feet. 210 divided into 4500 = 21.4 feet.(I'll grant that as seawater level rise, the continental slope increases the area of the ocean surface, so I'll go with the 6 meter vs. the 7 meter approximation.) Do you suffer from some infirmity that prohibits you from those same simple calculations?
And again, that does not at all address the rest of the landbound ice - just the Greenland Ice sheet.
Now, I believe I have been entitled to a quote.
"SHADDUP, numbskull!" - Moe Howard

Better but you have the shore line gradient backwards. The average shore line gradient I found was 14 degrees not 74 degrees.

And I already did those simple calculations and even wrote a model that I tested using data from the end of the ice age to now. Something many of those predictions have not.

Also, don't forget something called evaporation as all that warmer air pulls water out of the oceans and deposit it on the land. More surface area equals more evaporation and some of your friends use that same factor to link more snows with global warming. That the warmer water allows more evaporation and results in more snow.

[tina anne]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Not only are you barking up the wrong tree, you have the tree confused with a sailboat. Landbound ice displaces ZERO ZILCH NADA NO water until it enters a body of water. Even so, if you float a bucket containing either a lb of ice or a lb. of water, both will displace EXACTLY the same volume of water. 2 ships can weigh the same and have a completely different densities - but they still DISPLACE THE SAME tonnage. This is ELEMENTARY, so I'll provide you with a simple link even a grade schooler should be able to understand.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-m...

Not all the ice in the Artic is landbound. In fact most of it is floating.

Nice to see that you are capable of learning.

http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm

[PHD]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Not all the ice in the Artic is landbound. In fact most of it is floating.
Nice to see that you are capable of learning.
http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm

You have proved to all that you are incapable of learning. Oh it's Arctic see why you are Less than a Box of Rocks? So do tell all how much of the Arctic ice is floating and how much is landbound.

[ChromiuMan]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Not all the ice in the Artic is landbound. In fact most of it is floating.
Nice to see that you are capable of learning.
http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm

Not only am I capable of learning, I'm also capable of comprehending and extrapolating. Try it.
Greenland is not the only north polar land area.
The southern ARCTIC pole is completely land bound.
Water vapor is a major part of the greenhouse mechanism.
Water that falls on land is not forever bound to stay on land - and pay attentions to this: Even if it falls as snow and becomes glacial ice, it can and probably will eventually melt and flow into an ocean.

[litesong]

ChromiuMan wrote:

Not only am I capable of learning, I'm also capable of comprehending and extrapolating.

Extrapolate this:
We've been trying to teach tina anne(tiny-minded anne) obvious knowledge for years. She will not learn.

Wait! I did teach her about the advantages of 100% pure(ethanol-free) gasoline! She did transfer my knowledge to her husband, who confirmed what I had posted about 100% pure gasoline. Now she believes in 100% pure gasoline.

[ChromiuMan]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Extrapolate this:
We've been trying to teach tina anne(tiny-minded anne) obvious knowledge for years. She will not learn.
Wait! I did teach her about the advantages of 100% pure(ethanol-free) gasoline! She did transfer my knowledge to her husband, who confirmed what I had posted about 100% pure gasoline. Now she believes in 100% pure gasoline.

The purpose of putting ethanol in gas is to increase its oxygenation during combustion and environmentally it is a better option than MTBE, but its hygroscopic properties brings its own issues, and long-term exposure of aluminum can be problematic. I've never considered using food (corn, sugar beets, cane) to feed machines as a great idea.

That said, 100% pure gasoline" itself is a blend of xxxtane petrochemicals and additives.

[litesong]

ChromiuMan wrote:

100% pure gasoline" itself is a blend of xxxtane petrochemicals and additives.

That's why I defined my definition of '100% pure gasoline' as 'ethanol-free'.

[Brian_G]

Using MTBE is morally better than ethanol because you don't burn food grain.

Ethanol fuel additives are drive by starvation of the poor by the environmentalist.

[PHD]

Pure electric save all of the above are concerned about. Now stop the argument and go purchase an elect auto.

[ChromiuMan]

Brian_G wrote:

Using MTBE is morally better than ethanol because you don't burn food grain.
Ethanol fuel additives are drive by starvation of the poor by the environmentalist.

MTBE doesn't break down in soils and is far, far more toxic than ethanol. You do not want MTBE in your aquifer. A better alternative to alcohol or MTBE would be to move toward biofuels that don't originate from food stocks and to break from traditional reciprocating engine technology.

[ChromiuMan]

PHD wrote:

Pure electric save all of the above are concerned about. Now stop the argument and go purchase an elect auto.

Electric autos just move the pollution source to a remote location. You still have to feed the dynamos with something. Whether it is wind, water, coal, gas or nuclear, the losses in generation, transmission, storage and conversion to torque make electric vehicles inherently inefficient. Even fuel cells require fossil gasses to provide the amounts of hydrogen needed, and that process releases large amounts of c02 itself.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Electric autos just move the pollution source to a remote location. You still have to feed the dynamos with something. Whether it is wind, water, coal, gas or nuclear, the losses in generation, transmission, storage and conversion to torque make electric vehicles inherently inefficient. Even fuel cells require fossil gasses to provide the amounts of hydrogen needed, and that process releases large amounts of c02 itself.

Getting automobile pollution out of cities is not a bad thing. I would question that electric vehicles are more inefficient than internal combustion engines. Stationary generating plants can be less polluting than myriads of mobile sources. Hydrogen can be provided by the electrolysis of water that releases NO CO2 if solar or wind energy is used to dissociate the H2 and O2.

[bahaha]

bahaha

[ChromiuMan]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Getting automobile pollution out of cities is not a bad thing. I would question that electric vehicles are more inefficient than internal combustion engines. Stationary generating plants can be less polluting than myriads of mobile sources. Hydrogen can be provided by the electrolysis of water that releases NO CO2 if solar or wind energy is used to dissociate the H2 and O2.

Electrics would be good for reducing urban emissions, agreed.
Electrolysis cannot supply the demand. Even with the low numbers of hydrogen fueled cars now in use they have to strip hydrogen from hydrocarbon gasses. Unfortunately, a step toward the most effective solution is the least attractive - mass transit.
Similarly, the health care crisis would shrink to become a mere health care problem if people would only eat right and exercise.
Inconvenient is not the American Way.

[954Classifieds]

zoroaster wrote:

I love how climate change and global warming are synonymous in these statements.

I don't know if we will truly ever know the real answer on this subject.People say that we had this type of warming hundreds of years ago and that its just a cycle.My answer to that is we didn't have cars and factories back then!!!