Global Warming

dawman · Post by **dawman** » Wed May 31, 2006 6:40 pm

I spent my youth on the banks of the Missouri,and the Mississippi in St.Louis. We are use to major floods, and F1-5 tornados. New Orleans was use to flooding in the past, but from a different direction. They were ill prepared for Katrina. It is sad as New Orleans was, and is my favorite town 4 live entertainment. My European brethen would be astounded at all the different types of music,food, and people. I saw people looting and crossing dangerous alligator,and snake infested waters, Poisonous I might add as in Water Moccasins. But the picture I will never forget was the little cajun boy wading through the water with his fiddle high above his head. While everyone else was stealing food and canoes, he was saving his fiddle. I could have imagined what we would have done with our DAW's.

_________________
Jimmy V.

[ This Message was edited by: scope4live on 2006-05-31 19:44 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:13 am

On 2006-05-31 17:52, BingoTheClowno wrote:
By the way Astroman, why did the german people build this monastery in the middle of the Danube river:

just to prove it could be done - we're used to deal with difficult technical conditions...

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:27 am

On 2006-05-31 19:40, scope4live wrote:
...But the picture I will never forget was the little cajun boy wading through the water with his fiddle high above his head. While everyone else was stealing food and canoes, he was saving his fiddle. I could have imagined what we would have done with our DAW's.

touching... indeed
but DAWs are much more water-resistent than fiddles - if you'd manage to find them back in muddy water at all (and if they didn't spend several days in the dip)...

Get rid of the PSU, then a few showers to wash the dirt away, afterwards several bathes in distilled water (to solve remaining minerals) should do the job.
Dry carefully before firing up again.

cheers, tom

skwawks · Post by **skwawks** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:14 am

No Bingo....I know what you mean and all that but shit happens . things change ...you know, you get this guy on the history channel going they built this wonderful city in the middle of the jungle and then suddenly they all left... "why"
well they left cos shit happened one way or another . by be dynamic I meant, stay light on your feet ...dont commit too easily .. be flexible .. be willing to question what seems obvious ,sort of .if you wanna .... and all that

Take Toms advice and carry plenty of distilled water to get your daw going again .
Anyway there's got to be an upside to global warming hasn't there . Palm trees in Hamburg ..Salsa in Grimsby

Tony Blair in a hawaiin shirt going " no its cool mon, Jah n' me we got this thing mon ":-)
Best regards
Paul

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:15 pm

global warming may or may not be real and may even be the cause of the storms, but the flooding was caused by men according to the us army:
http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?gui ... 1705073297

Aries · Post by **Aries** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:10 am

Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear

Check :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/p ... 005994.stm

Or watch:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

Zer · Post by **Zer** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:18 am

sorry mates, but your are a bit to late for severe ennvironmental politics. However, you can probably avoid much more problems or try living in a
http://www.iwillhostyourstuff.com/aucti ... rs/images/

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:45 am

kinda cramped. nice benches.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:56 am

here's a funny thought:
water expands when it becomes ice. if the pole would melt, the oceans would RECEDE because ice is 10% or so more volumous than liquid water. yet we're told there'll be rampant flooding if the poles melt(which makes sense if you don't think about it)so what's the REAL truth?

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:32 am

It's a fair point, but is most of the ice not above sea level ?

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:40 am

nope. most of the ice is below sea level. think iceberg.

Post by **hubird** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:17 pm

90% if I'm right

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:08 pm

estimated 3' drop (1m) in sea level if the icecaps melt.

try it in a glass of water. put some ice in some water, mark the waterline and let the ice melt. remeasure.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:49 am

On 2006-06-19 22:17, hubird wrote:
90% if I'm right

The present Antarctic ice sheet accounts for 90 percent of Earth's total ice volume and 70 percent of its fresh water. It houses enough water to raise global sea level by 200 ft. if completely melted.

In other words 90% represents the total volume of ice in the world not the volume of ice under water.
Please, no more unfounded oppinions.

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-20 17:18 ]

Post by **hubird** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:34 am

On 2006-06-20 06:49, BingoTheClowno wrote:
Please, no more unfounded oppinions.

I sincerely hope you wanne accept my apologies.
However, 'my' 90% could still be true very well also...

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-06-20 08:35 ]

Post by **garyb** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:15 pm

DUH!!!!
WHEN WATER MELTS IT DECREASES IN VOLUME!!

sorry to shout, nothing personal...
as i said, do the experiment for yourself!

put water and icecubes in a glass(enough water that the ice is floating). mark the level. let the ice melt and then mark the level again.

if all the ice in the poles melts(of which the majority is under water! i thought that's what the 90% was about. it's certainly not that much, but whatever! it's probably more like 70% of polar ice under water. we mentioned icebergs!)the sea level will remain the same or even DROP! it HAS to. not all of the newly liberated water will remain in the ocean or on the surface.

one of the special properties of water is that ice is less dense than liquid water. that's why ice floats on water.

it SEEMS obvious if the ice melts that the level will rise, but it just ain't so.

do the experiment yourself and see!

this is 1st grade science. here's a link to a teacher's site about just this phenomenon. it is fundimental to life on earth and is regularly taught:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae389.cfm
and a little less on the subject but about it still:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/dirt/sinking.htm

if land-locked ice were the only factor, the 200ft prediction might be accurate, but the fact is that MOST of the polar ice is in the ocean. from bingo's article:
"Millions of square miles of sea ice surround Antarctica; the extent annually experiences a five-fold increase and decrease, with the winter maximum more than doubling the entire Antarctic region's area of ice coverage"

so....70% of the fresh water becomes 140% in the winter? these figures are misleading.

either the writer of this article is ignorant, just repeating some factoids gathered from his various sources, or he is writing an intentionally misleading piece.

how about the sun burning hotter than ever, heading into it's hottest known phase in history? could that be part of the problem? why so little coverage in popular scientific articles? why only in scholarly papers?

what about technologies designed to heat the atmosphere directly like HAARP? tech that by design can superheat selected portions of the atmosphere, spin up storms, cause earthquakes and disrupt communications, but is sworn to never be used like that....

no, it must be us little piggies who need to be regulated, not the ones who would build such devices or design economies around false shortages of abiotic, plentiful and dirty burning crude.....

oh, it must be CO2! of course, CO2 is used by plants, especially trees, which when CO2 levels are high, grow like crazy, give off O2 and then cool the environment....or haven't you been to a hot area and then found a group of trees and felt the cooling effect? in the very short term, rising CO2 levels MAY cause a rise in temp. this will be quickly followed by a drop. catastrophic global warming needs more factors.

a slightly more "scientific analysis(including the words "melting ice MAY enter the ocean"):
http://www.science.org.au/nova/082/082key.htm
notice that landlocked antactic ice may not melt no matter what, or it might because of some factor not seen yet. currently, the ice sheets in danger of melting are mostly already in the ocean and although the melt might be the harbinger of true destruction, it won't be from rising oceans. still, this article is a traditional governmental "global warming" teror fest.

here is a truly scholarly article on the subject(you know, from a university study, a school):
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2 ... ce-trends/
be sure to click on "misconceptions" linked also here:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/c ... nceptions/

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-20 17:21 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:20 pm

On 2006-06-20 16:15, garyb wrote:
DUH!!!!
WHEN WATER MELTS IT DECREASES IN VOLUME!!

Are you suggesting that the ocean levels will drop if the caps melt?

Post by **garyb** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:22 pm

yes, no, maybe...
sorry Bingo, i added some pertinent links since you posted....

Post by **garyb** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:35 pm

first of all, IF the ice melted the ocean ice would cause no rise for reasons already demonstrated. the land-locked ice would not nessessarily go into the ocean. the land-locked ice is well below sea level and there is little or no mechanism to make it run into the sea(water never runs uphill). it might just make a muddy lake and then a mudpit as the water soaked into the ground. some or all of the water MIGHT go into the ocean, but the change might also cause land movement, which might lower sea levels in itself. IF all the land locked ice melted and IF it all ran into the sea, THEN you would see oceans rise. my guess is that this would be the least of the problems. life as we know it would have probably ended long before all this extra liquid ran into the oceans. it's fear mongering.

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-20 17:36 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:04 pm

I doubt that the figures are that easily interpreted. The polar ice caps have massive amounts of ice (not all land locked) above the water & that's obviously part of the concern of scientists. The ice floating, the ice mountains & ice fiords if they melted would probably cause a rise in sea level due to the fact that the quatities above the water should amount to much more than the difference or drop caused by what's below. You say levels would drop, try the ice in a glass test etc, but what are the figures? What would be the percentage drop in levels when water emerged ice melts? Would the percentage drop in levels be so extreme as to cancel out the effect of the *non* land locked polar ice above water melting? Got some facts & figures?