Jump to content

Middle of the night thoughts...


Eyefor
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, The Mighty Prawn said:

I have read so many different calculations of how much the sea level will actually rise I can't decide who is right, what I do know is if it reaches me in the Midlands then my house is going to be worth a lot more than currently! 

And you can have duck flight in your garden there’s a lot of positives to the global climate change 🤭

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, amateur said:

I know that she is still breathing - it's the snoring that wakes me up!

As far as Eyefor's question goes - isn't it the ice on the Greenland land mass, which if melted, would significantly raise sea levels?

everytime fat sarah goes swimming at mundsley..........the thames barrier has to go up...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Gallon of water, when frozen, expands.  It still weighs the same so the ice is less dense than the unfrozen water, therefore it floats.

The amount of an iceberg (the whole of the "floating" Arctic) above the waterline is exactly the amount of this expansion.

When it melts, it shrinks into a space the exact size of the displaced water (the bit of the iceberg below the waterline) so there is no rise in the water level at all.

You may have heard of the Ice Age, back then Canada was basically under Kilometers of ice (yes, that thick) it melted (along with the glaciers in all the other parts of the world), sea level rose.  We are STILL coming out of the Ice Age thank goodness, the seas continue to rise as the Glaciers melt (but it is nothing to do with us, or oil or gas etc etc).

Glaciers were retreating long before we burned things in earnest:  glacierbaymap_thumb.gif?w=756&h=824

 

Sea level rise is a long steady process:  image_thumb49_thumb.png?w=789&h=640

 

Glaciers come and go.  It might interest you that the Romans had much smaller glaciers: http://notrickszone.com/2014/10/30/more-glacier-studies-confirm-roman-and-medieval-warm-periods-were-just-as-warm-as-today/

 

RS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Norfolk will go first 😂😂

Part of it is already gone , every time you get a good blow on a high North / Easterly tide the coastline lose a few meters and with it a few houses as well .

A lot of the marsh land have been reclaimed from the sea and one day the sea will reclaim them back , nothing more surer than that 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Probably not although it could be interesting building a ark to get a few animals afloat 

 

That could create another landmass to replace the ones submerged.

When Noah built his ark and got afloat with it then he found he had rather a lot of animal dung to get rid of.

Him and his sons shovelled it over the sides whilst his wife made cups of tea and cooked for them. (it was like that in those un-enlightened times)

This of course created quite a pile of dung.

Anyway, some centuries later Christopher Colombus discovered it and called it America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scraping the mind for the answer from GCSE geography brings this up, some of which may have been debunked.

 

One polar cap floats as and therefore melting it will make no difference to sea level, the other is almost entirely sat on land and does then run off into the sea raising the level as it melts. 

 

Overall however if I remember rightly the effect is relatively insignificant compared to the increase in volume of the water with temperature which also raises the sea level.  Where the earth is covered in ice it reflects a good deal of energy from the sun back into space which will be absorbed and further raise temperatures in the absence of as much ice cover. 

 

Consequently the rise rise in sea level due to polar cap melting is due to both increased liquid water and increased volume of that water due to higher temperature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, KFC said:

That could create another landmass to replace the ones submerged.

When Noah built his ark and got afloat with it then he found he had rather a lot of animal dung to get rid of.

Him and his sons shovelled it over the sides whilst his wife made cups of tea and cooked for them. (it was like that in those un-enlightened times)

This of course created quite a pile of dung.

Anyway, some centuries later Christopher Colombus discovered it and called it America.

I always wondered what happened to all the dung 😂😂😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

If it does happen the Isle of Wight might vanish!

Hope not. I'm there at the moment and I don't get the ferry back until Friday :hmm:

Just have to have a few more pints of Goddard's Fuggle-de-dum and forget about global warming.

OB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

If it does happen the Isle of Wight might vanish!

Some may hope that Mr Packham is there on holiday helping his girlfriend build an ark? Would maybe need to be a big one though to get all of his Crows and Mr Averys Lynx aboard. 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RockySpears said:

When it melts, it shrinks into a space the exact size of the displaced water (the bit of the iceberg below the waterline) so there is no rise in the water level at all. 

 

11 hours ago, Wb123 said:

One polar cap floats as and therefore melting it will make no difference to sea level

Are you sure? If it melts it does not shrink to the exact size of the displaced water as the displaced water is just the size of the ice under the water level and not the amount above the water.

Quote

The volume of displaced fluid is equivalent to the volume of an object fully immersed in a fluid or to that fraction of the volume below the surface for an object partially submerged in a liquid.

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, henry d said:

 

Are you sure? If it melts it does not shrink to the exact size of the displaced water as the displaced water is just the size of the ice under the water level and not the amount above the water.

think i will stick to BREXIT.........???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, henry d said:

The volume of displaced fluid is equivalent to the volume of an object fully immersed in a fluid or to that fraction of the volume below the surface for an object partially submerged in a liquid.

No, not volumes, it is mass that counts.  The volume of displaced fluid has a MASS the same as that of the object.  The volume displaced is only ever equal the volume of the object when it sinks (hence the Eureka moment when Archimedes worked out how to tell if a crown was made of gold or not by being able to calculate the volume of an irregular object.  Having the volume and the weight (mass) meant he could get the density, therefore he could compare the crown's density to the known density of gold).

 

RS

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...