Printable View
Global warming is making the place hotter.
A Nuke war could bring on an ice age due to the dust in the atmosphere.
????? Why not combine the two to balance the effects.:doh:
Pump dust into the upper atmosphere to reduce the global warming effect.
Oz sure has enough bull dust to supply the rest of the world and Canberra has enough hot air to get the dust up there.:roll:
Nuh, it will never happen :no: , the politicans will need to do a study first and they would deny that they have hot air anyway:roll:
The very same story was in the Melbourne Age on the weekend, the yanks are thinking of doing the reflective particle thing if things get too hot on earth.
Al :o
you could build a super large umbrella to shade the cities l see it on TV
a rich guy Mr Burns was going to do it:U
The same thing was in the same story in the Mel Age, and yep the Yanks are thinking of doing it.
Al :oagain
Here.
Al :cool:
But would it not be cheaper to just nuke part of the US.:o
hay we could wright a report get paid heaps like anyone read them anyway,
#1 BUILD A BIG BOAT (JUST IN CASE)
Mirrors are reflective... mirrors are made of glass... when sand is super heated it turns to glass... there is lots of sand in the middle east... conclusion, nuke the middle east and turn it into a big mirror? Just a thought, although I think the greenies may have a problem with the environmental impact study reports.
WHat ever the case its our poor old childrens children that are gonna be left with the legasy of our decisions
I pity em and am truely ashamed of being a part of the generation that has done nothing BUT could have saved the world.
Just goes to show how important making a buck is....................Pity the decision makers have their heads so far up >>>>> <<<<< that they'll put a multinationals pay cheque before their own great great grandchildren
SHAME SHAME SHAME!
Lucky I can run to my SHed n hide from it all:no:
Yes, if I get to choose which part. :D :UQuote:
Originally Posted by DavidG
It's okay Bob, we'd make they didn't miss your place :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob Childress
Richard
look good on the insurance claim wouldn't it :doh:
I have been having a rather interesting discussion on another website with some boffins. There are some questions to be answered in relation to exactly what is causing global warming. new information seems to contridict the basic tenent that Man is responsible for global warming or even the concept of accellerated warming.
There have been periods in the earths history when the earth has been much warmer than now and much warmer than any of the climate models have predicted.
What these boffins are saying is that global warming is happening but it is a natural cycle and there aint nothin we can do about it.
http://www.dailytech.com/Bad+News+fo...rticle5914.htm
I'm not sufficiantly versed to argue the point. I just thought you ought to know that there are quite a few people aut there who arnt convinced.
Current research seems to indicate indisputable increase in average temperatures. But it didn't start anytime recently. More like a few hundred years ago, at the onset of industrial revolution.
But, I have a problem with the alarums about sea level rise. I searched the weird wild web for some arithmetic supporting the prediction, and came up dry (so to speak). If they're including melting of floating icebergs, sorry, 'taint so; when ice in a container melts, the water level doesn't rise - weight has to stay constant after all. Only landlocked glaciers can contribute. Thermal expansion of ocean water? I don't think there'd be enough of an effect. Still looking for some real arithmetic, not just statistical projections.
Joe
Joe,
Aren't you confusing weight with specific gravity?, if you place ice in a container of water I would of thought the level of the water has to rise as the ice melts. The volume of ice above the water line turns to liquid and its new specific gravity has it settling in with the water.
In any case isn't it the polar ice caps melting thta is the problem, and a fair bit of that ice is sitting on land not bobbing around in the sea.
Dadpad.
I agree.
change in the oceans currents is what will happen before the ice melts
some say it is already happening :oo:
you can aways find a scientist that need a pay check to say anything to keep thier grant to say mankind isn't changing the world climate is a joke :~
this done to keep the capitalism system on track (for how long:? )yes we all could do something about it parts of europe already have green parties in power this is because the globle change has a greater afect (acid rain l,, trees just dieing out )here in ozzie land we wont change until we have to ,sad but true ,:C eg farming in a oz we have a thin layer of soil so we farm hard hoof animals (kangaroos much better opp bid deal about coat of arm thingy if we are going to eat meat do it right farmer have known(sorry been told) for 50 yrs that what they are doing is damageing the eco system so now we have been told for the larst what 25 yrs about g/w and still nothing is happening :no:
just have to wait for a sea view
Not so. The water level will actually fall. This is because as water freezes it expands so a cubic inch of water when frozen will occupy more than a cubic inch of space.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnc
Even allowing for the bit floating above the water surface the level will still fall as the block melts.
Regards
Neil.
Neither one. A pound of water weighs a pound. A pound of ice weighs a pound. The ice is in equilibrium. Water level can't tell the difference. (Apologies for Imperial measurements)
I'm not suggesting acceptance of outlying experts who recommend doing nothing. I'd just like to see the arithmetic about sea level rise. That said, sometimes it's necessary to soften the truth to get folks attention. See for example Churchill's "Bodyguard of Lies." (Not quite the same, but you get the idea.)
Joe
Bob, the Artic might be all ice and the theory is relevant.
But
The Antartic is a continent covered with ice.
When that ice melts it must run into the sea
so it seems there could be sea level rises.
Hoiwever if the climate is warmer there will be more evaporation so we might end up with more clouds, so the effect on sea level is not accurately predictable.
Not right either.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe greiner
It's not to do with weight, but volume. You are correct, the WEIGHT stays the same, but when water freezes it's VOLUME increases. It's weight stays the same, but it gets bigger. Conversely, when it thaws, the water in an iceberg has LESS volume than when frozen, so the total volume of the sea in which it lives becomes less.
Makes sense to me.
Yeah but about 10% of that volume is out of the water when it's frozen, so have you factored that in? If the difference is more than 10%, the sea level falls, if the same, equilibrium, if less, sea level rises.Quote:
the water in an iceberg has LESS volume than when frozen
According to Wikipedia, ice is about 8% less dense than water. So when it melts, the volume of the water that was once in the iceberg reduces by 8%. So 8% of the volume that was above water is cancelled out giving a net increase of volume now in the ocean of 2%.