Our Future?
- Thread starter firefish9
- Start date
jovial
Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I should try the melting icecube thing, but I have to disagree that volume stays constant. Water expands as it freezes, which is why is floats, it takes up more volume and is therefore lighter, (same mass in more volume). So while I understand that the melting could cause changes in precipitation I cannot agree that the volume is unchaged.
But as it expands it does not go away but merely changes form. The volume is still there but is now in a different form.
Think of it in terms of matter. It cannot be created or destroyed only changed in form. Not all ice floats, it is a matter of density (no pun intended).
The same ammount of water is in the glass but the solid form of the ice allows it to maintain a structure that protrudes from the surface of the water (ice bergs). When the ice cubes melt the same ammount of water becomes liquid and must overflow the glass due to the displacement of the ice. Hope this makes sense. Matter remains constant but only takes a different form, whether it be solid, liquid, or gas. As the ice melts levels of precipitation will increase, the increase in precipitation (water vapor) will cause an increase in snow falls in areas where the temp is cooler (remember globabl warming is not effecting the entire globe, mostly just the polar ice caps) this will cause increased snowfalls in these areas. It is more of a shifting of weather patterns not a global meltdown.
Plate tectonics also effects this pattern somewhat. Sorry this is getting too, I'll stop for now.
I should try the melting icecube thing, but I have to disagree that volume stays constant. Water expands as it freezes, which is why is floats, it takes up more volume and is therefore lighter, (same mass in more volume). So while I understand that the melting could cause changes in precipitation I cannot agree that the volume is unchaged.
But as it expands it does not go away but merely changes form. The volume is still there but is now in a different form.
Think of it in terms of matter. It cannot be created or destroyed only changed in form. Not all ice floats, it is a matter of density (no pun intended).
The same ammount of water is in the glass but the solid form of the ice allows it to maintain a structure that protrudes from the surface of the water (ice bergs). When the ice cubes melt the same ammount of water becomes liquid and must overflow the glass due to the displacement of the ice. Hope this makes sense. Matter remains constant but only takes a different form, whether it be solid, liquid, or gas. As the ice melts levels of precipitation will increase, the increase in precipitation (water vapor) will cause an increase in snow falls in areas where the temp is cooler (remember globabl warming is not effecting the entire globe, mostly just the polar ice caps) this will cause increased snowfalls in these areas. It is more of a shifting of weather patterns not a global meltdown.
Plate tectonics also effects this pattern somewhat. Sorry this is getting too, I'll stop for now.
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jovial
But as it expands it does not go away but merely changes form. The volume is still there but is now in a different form.
Think of it in terms of matter. It cannot be created or destroyed only changed in form. Not all ice floats, it is a matter of density (no pun intended).
The same ammount of water is in the glass but the solid form of the ice allows it to maintain a structure that protrudes from the surface of the water (ice bergs). When the ice cubes melt the same ammount of water becomes liquid and must overflow the glass due to the displacement of the ice. Hope this makes sense. Matter remains constant but only takes a different form.
Volume changes, the mass does not. Volume is how much space it takes up which decreases which is my point, yes the water mass is still there, but in a liquid form they take up less room, water expands as it freezes and shrinks as it melts. Yes the density is lower for the ice because it has the same mass in less volume therefore it floats with about 80% underwater, as it melts the density increases, volume decreases and mass remains the same.
But as it expands it does not go away but merely changes form. The volume is still there but is now in a different form.
Think of it in terms of matter. It cannot be created or destroyed only changed in form. Not all ice floats, it is a matter of density (no pun intended).
The same ammount of water is in the glass but the solid form of the ice allows it to maintain a structure that protrudes from the surface of the water (ice bergs). When the ice cubes melt the same ammount of water becomes liquid and must overflow the glass due to the displacement of the ice. Hope this makes sense. Matter remains constant but only takes a different form.
Volume changes, the mass does not. Volume is how much space it takes up which decreases which is my point, yes the water mass is still there, but in a liquid form they take up less room, water expands as it freezes and shrinks as it melts. Yes the density is lower for the ice because it has the same mass in less volume therefore it floats with about 80% underwater, as it melts the density increases, volume decreases and mass remains the same.
jovial
Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Volume changes, the mass does not. Volume is how much space it takes up which decreases which is my point, yes the water mass is still there, but in a liquid form they take up less room, water expands as it freezes and shrinks as it melts. Yes the density is lower for the ice because it has the same mass in less volume therefore it floats with about 80% underwater, as it melts the density increases, volume decreases and mass remains the same.
Just the opposite. Same mass in less volume (area) = higher density. Ice has a higher density, it's a solid. Think of it in terms of specific gravity. Higher salinity will cause the water to become more dense and the hydrometer to float higher. As the water becomes more dense it solidifies and eventually pushing itself out of the water.
Volume changes, the mass does not. Volume is how much space it takes up which decreases which is my point, yes the water mass is still there, but in a liquid form they take up less room, water expands as it freezes and shrinks as it melts. Yes the density is lower for the ice because it has the same mass in less volume therefore it floats with about 80% underwater, as it melts the density increases, volume decreases and mass remains the same.
Just the opposite. Same mass in less volume (area) = higher density. Ice has a higher density, it's a solid. Think of it in terms of specific gravity. Higher salinity will cause the water to become more dense and the hydrometer to float higher. As the water becomes more dense it solidifies and eventually pushing itself out of the water.
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jovial
Just the opposite. Same mass in less volume (area) would make it more dense. Ice has a higher density, it's a solid.
While this is generally true of solids verses liquids the hydrogen bonding that occurs in water makes water behave differently then other substances. Ice is actually less dense. As water cools the molecules get closer and closer, around 3 degrees C this reverses. Due to the polarity of water (the oxygen has a much higher electon negativity to the hydrogen giving the hydrogen a partial positive charge thus why it is called hydrogen bonding) the molecules are forced to arrange in a specific structure that is actually less dense. This is why ice floats, why a lake can freeze over and fish can live beneath it until it unfreezes. If you were to take another liquid (nonpolar) and freeze it the ice would sink because it would become more dense.
Just the opposite. Same mass in less volume (area) would make it more dense. Ice has a higher density, it's a solid.
While this is generally true of solids verses liquids the hydrogen bonding that occurs in water makes water behave differently then other substances. Ice is actually less dense. As water cools the molecules get closer and closer, around 3 degrees C this reverses. Due to the polarity of water (the oxygen has a much higher electon negativity to the hydrogen giving the hydrogen a partial positive charge thus why it is called hydrogen bonding) the molecules are forced to arrange in a specific structure that is actually less dense. This is why ice floats, why a lake can freeze over and fish can live beneath it until it unfreezes. If you were to take another liquid (nonpolar) and freeze it the ice would sink because it would become more dense.
jovial
Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
While this is generally true of solids verses liquids the hydrogen bonding that occurs in water makes water behave differently then other substances. Ice is actually less dense. As water cools the molecules get closer and closer, around 3 degrees C this reverses. Due to the polarity of water (the oxygen has a much higher electon negativity to the hydrogen giving the hydrogen a partial positive charge thus why it is called hydrogen bonding) the molecules are forced to arrange in a specific structure that is actually less dense. This is why ice floats, why a lake can freeze over and fish can live beneath it until it unfreezes. If you were to take another liquid (nonpolar) and freeze it the ice would sink because it would become more dense.
Heres why, you mentioned it in your last sentence. Distilled water is still H20 and does not follow these principles. Distilled H20 wont even conduct electricity. Heavy water is another type and is almost chemically identical to normal water, except that the hyd molecule is replaced by deuterium (another form of hydrogen). I know the oceans are not comprised of distilled water but what do you think happens to the density of water when it becomes more diluted? Dont know how familliar you are with heavy water? and its uses in atomic energy production. Precipitation.
While this is generally true of solids verses liquids the hydrogen bonding that occurs in water makes water behave differently then other substances. Ice is actually less dense. As water cools the molecules get closer and closer, around 3 degrees C this reverses. Due to the polarity of water (the oxygen has a much higher electon negativity to the hydrogen giving the hydrogen a partial positive charge thus why it is called hydrogen bonding) the molecules are forced to arrange in a specific structure that is actually less dense. This is why ice floats, why a lake can freeze over and fish can live beneath it until it unfreezes. If you were to take another liquid (nonpolar) and freeze it the ice would sink because it would become more dense.
Heres why, you mentioned it in your last sentence. Distilled water is still H20 and does not follow these principles. Distilled H20 wont even conduct electricity. Heavy water is another type and is almost chemically identical to normal water, except that the hyd molecule is replaced by deuterium (another form of hydrogen). I know the oceans are not comprised of distilled water but what do you think happens to the density of water when it becomes more diluted? Dont know how familliar you are with heavy water? and its uses in atomic energy production. Precipitation.
jerthunter
Active Member
I think you are confusing concepts now. Pure or unpure water is polar and will always increase in volume when it freezes.
jovial
Member
I have to disagree with you about H20 density, considering the properties of heavy water and distilled water which are still H20 (D20). The density of water is not the same, 1.108 g/cm3 for heavy H20. The freezing and boiling points are also different. Same for salt water.
Since were talking about global warming I think we have to look at a much bigger picture. Although this is partially true about ice being less dense, it is not 100% accurate. Ice made from distilled or heavy water will sink.
Yes the iceburgs are not made of distilled or heavy water but when they melt the water has to go somewhere which is why it will dilute the sea and raise water levels. It will also create more precipitation which will in turn cause more snow and in other areas. So I think it is more of a shifting rather than a meltdown because the world is not heating up evenly.
Since were talking about global warming I think we have to look at a much bigger picture. Although this is partially true about ice being less dense, it is not 100% accurate. Ice made from distilled or heavy water will sink.
Yes the iceburgs are not made of distilled or heavy water but when they melt the water has to go somewhere which is why it will dilute the sea and raise water levels. It will also create more precipitation which will in turn cause more snow and in other areas. So I think it is more of a shifting rather than a meltdown because the world is not heating up evenly.
jerthunter
Active Member
You are confusing me. Water is water, solid water is less dense compared to liquid water, it is unusual but it is an important feature that supports life. Heavy water has little to no application here, but it is true, if you add mass to the atom (in this case we are talking about about neutrons) it will cause a change in the density but it will not change the fact that water is polar, the neutron only adds mass, no charge and so the Oxygen atom in water will still be greedy and not evenly share its electrons with the 2 hydrogens bonded. As you mentioned salt water is not pure, but it is still chemically the same, only due to its polar nature it dissolves large amounts of ions and polar molecules. I still do not see how this would change the level of water if we are only talking about what ice is floating on water. If we look at what Dogstar mentioned, water melting from land then yes I can see how it would raise the water, but not ice floating on water. You mention the fact of dillution. This does not change the polarity of water and although it will dillute the dissolved ions in the water we are talking about maybe a volume of 2% of freshwater compared to the ocean it is dilluteing. Compare this with the fact that rain falls on land, runs out to the ocean and carries with it dissolved substances which increases (slowly) the salinity of the ocean and I do not believe you would see a noticable change in the salinity of the ocean.
jovial
Member
The salinity of the ocean is rather stable, even in areas of extreme salinity such as the dead sea they have remained relatively stable. Enter global warming.
What Im saying is that all of this is changing with the ice caps melting. This much ice melting cant help but have an effect. There is so much water contained in these regions that it will inevitably effect the salinity and density of the water in these areas when it melts. Maybe not to the extremes of the examples posted but heavy and distilled water are proof that ice can become more dense and sink. There are other types of water H218O (heavy oxygenated water) will also sink when in ice form. Hope this helps.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/how20/a...cbccdrcrd.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
In about 50 years I think a large part of FL will be underwater but ice caps will form in other areas. Eventually if the output of CO2 continues at this rate the whole planet will lean more towards a greenhouse effect. China? Then were screwed.
What Im saying is that all of this is changing with the ice caps melting. This much ice melting cant help but have an effect. There is so much water contained in these regions that it will inevitably effect the salinity and density of the water in these areas when it melts. Maybe not to the extremes of the examples posted but heavy and distilled water are proof that ice can become more dense and sink. There are other types of water H218O (heavy oxygenated water) will also sink when in ice form. Hope this helps.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/how20/a...cbccdrcrd.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
In about 50 years I think a large part of FL will be underwater but ice caps will form in other areas. Eventually if the output of CO2 continues at this rate the whole planet will lean more towards a greenhouse effect. China? Then were screwed.
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jovial
The salinity of the ocean is rather stable, even in areas of extreme salinity such as the dead sea they stay relatively stable.
What Im saying is that all of this is changing with the ice caps melting. This much ice melting cant help but have an effect. There is so much water contained in these regions that it will inevitably effect the salinity and density of the water in these areas when it melts. Heavy and distilled water is an extreme example but proves that ice can sink. There are other types of water H218O (heavy oxygenated water) will also sink when in ice form.
In about 50 years I think a large part of FL will be underwater but ice caps will form in other areas. Eventually if the output of CO2 continues at this rate the whole planet will lean more towards a greenhouse effect. China? Then were screwed.
You seem to be redirecting, which is ok I guess but it hasn't answered my question. I seriously doubt a large part of Florida will be underwater in 50 years but I suppose there is a good change I will still be around to see it and if it is you can tell me 'I told you so'.
This started with you saying that volume remains constant, but it doesn't, then saying that ice is denser then water, then saying well some ice is. I do not work with heavy water so I cannot refute your claim that ice made from heavy water sinks but this doesn't matter if it does. We are talking about the water in the ocean which when it freezes becomes less dense compared to the liquid water in the ocean.
I do not disagree that we can see changes in our enviroment in our lifetimes and I do not disagree that humans can cause or atleast help along many of these changes, but humans are merely a part of nature, we do not control everything nor do we control nothing. We have our role which I believe is far to big of a concept for us to ever fully understand or only understood in hindsight.
The salinity of the ocean is rather stable, even in areas of extreme salinity such as the dead sea they stay relatively stable.
What Im saying is that all of this is changing with the ice caps melting. This much ice melting cant help but have an effect. There is so much water contained in these regions that it will inevitably effect the salinity and density of the water in these areas when it melts. Heavy and distilled water is an extreme example but proves that ice can sink. There are other types of water H218O (heavy oxygenated water) will also sink when in ice form.
In about 50 years I think a large part of FL will be underwater but ice caps will form in other areas. Eventually if the output of CO2 continues at this rate the whole planet will lean more towards a greenhouse effect. China? Then were screwed.
You seem to be redirecting, which is ok I guess but it hasn't answered my question. I seriously doubt a large part of Florida will be underwater in 50 years but I suppose there is a good change I will still be around to see it and if it is you can tell me 'I told you so'.
This started with you saying that volume remains constant, but it doesn't, then saying that ice is denser then water, then saying well some ice is. I do not work with heavy water so I cannot refute your claim that ice made from heavy water sinks but this doesn't matter if it does. We are talking about the water in the ocean which when it freezes becomes less dense compared to the liquid water in the ocean.
I do not disagree that we can see changes in our enviroment in our lifetimes and I do not disagree that humans can cause or atleast help along many of these changes, but humans are merely a part of nature, we do not control everything nor do we control nothing. We have our role which I believe is far to big of a concept for us to ever fully understand or only understood in hindsight.
ophiura
Active Member
How about a prehistoric map of the US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...us_general.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...an_general.jpg
In article:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/
Kinda eye opening, isn't it?
Climate change is occurring, but the input from man is open to question - MAJOR question, IMO.
Look up the geologic history of Antarctica - and the forests that once covered it.
However, you should stand up for energy efficiency, recycling, clean air, etc for your OWN benefit and health. But I assure you the EARTH will go on just fine, even if every human was gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...us_general.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...an_general.jpg
In article:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/continents/
Kinda eye opening, isn't it?
Climate change is occurring, but the input from man is open to question - MAJOR question, IMO.
Look up the geologic history of Antarctica - and the forests that once covered it.
However, you should stand up for energy efficiency, recycling, clean air, etc for your OWN benefit and health. But I assure you the EARTH will go on just fine, even if every human was gone.
jovial
Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
You seem to be redirecting, which is ok I guess but it hasn't answered my question. I seriously doubt a large part of Florida will be underwater in 50 years but I suppose there is a good change I will still be around to see it and if it is you can tell me 'I told you so'.
This started with you saying that volume remains constant, but it doesn't, then saying that ice is denser then water, then saying well some ice is. I do not work with heavy water so I cannot refute your claim that ice made from heavy water sinks but this doesn't matter if it does. We are talking about the water in the ocean which when it freezes becomes less dense compared to the liquid water in the ocean.
I do not disagree that we can see changes in our enviroment in our lifetimes and I do not disagree that humans can cause or atleast help along many of these changes, but humans are merely a part of nature, we do not control everything nor do we control nothing. We have our role which I believe is far to big of a concept for us to ever fully understand or only understood in hindsight.
Sometimes it's necessary to do this in order to explain a point. Sorry to confuse you, didnt mean too. It would take a little while longer and is beyond the scope and topic of this thread to go into the physics of it without "derailing" it. I can assure you that the ammount of water will remain constant only change in form. Maybe we can pick this up later on after the laundry is done.
You seem to be redirecting, which is ok I guess but it hasn't answered my question. I seriously doubt a large part of Florida will be underwater in 50 years but I suppose there is a good change I will still be around to see it and if it is you can tell me 'I told you so'.
This started with you saying that volume remains constant, but it doesn't, then saying that ice is denser then water, then saying well some ice is. I do not work with heavy water so I cannot refute your claim that ice made from heavy water sinks but this doesn't matter if it does. We are talking about the water in the ocean which when it freezes becomes less dense compared to the liquid water in the ocean.
I do not disagree that we can see changes in our enviroment in our lifetimes and I do not disagree that humans can cause or atleast help along many of these changes, but humans are merely a part of nature, we do not control everything nor do we control nothing. We have our role which I believe is far to big of a concept for us to ever fully understand or only understood in hindsight.
Sometimes it's necessary to do this in order to explain a point. Sorry to confuse you, didnt mean too. It would take a little while longer and is beyond the scope and topic of this thread to go into the physics of it without "derailing" it. I can assure you that the ammount of water will remain constant only change in form. Maybe we can pick this up later on after the laundry is done.
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jovial
Sometimes it's necessary to do this in order to explain a point. Sorry to confuse you, didnt mean too. It would take a little while longer and is beyond the scope and topic of this thread to go into the physics of it without "derailing" it. I can assure you that the ammount of water will remain constant only change in form. Maybe we can pick this up later on after the laundry is done.
Well if you ever want to give me an answer I can use to my question I am willing to hear it. You have confused me greatly as you've sidetracked the question, claimed one thing, denied it and claimed another. If you do not know the answer there is no shame in that, I do not know that is why I asked. What bothers me is missinformation. You said the volume does not change, which is does. Volume changes with temperature. You have said that ice is denser then water, which is isn't. You have mentioned information that is not applicable to the situation, (i.e. heavy water). If you do not see the error in your statements and how they do not answer my inital question of how ice caps melting raises sea level then I suppose I can never convince you. I you still wish to convince me of something feel free, I'm sure I will check back occationally between comercials of the Apprentice.
Sometimes it's necessary to do this in order to explain a point. Sorry to confuse you, didnt mean too. It would take a little while longer and is beyond the scope and topic of this thread to go into the physics of it without "derailing" it. I can assure you that the ammount of water will remain constant only change in form. Maybe we can pick this up later on after the laundry is done.
Well if you ever want to give me an answer I can use to my question I am willing to hear it. You have confused me greatly as you've sidetracked the question, claimed one thing, denied it and claimed another. If you do not know the answer there is no shame in that, I do not know that is why I asked. What bothers me is missinformation. You said the volume does not change, which is does. Volume changes with temperature. You have said that ice is denser then water, which is isn't. You have mentioned information that is not applicable to the situation, (i.e. heavy water). If you do not see the error in your statements and how they do not answer my inital question of how ice caps melting raises sea level then I suppose I can never convince you. I you still wish to convince me of something feel free, I'm sure I will check back occationally between comercials of the Apprentice.
texanangel
Member
About the ice cap melting thing, you have to understand the nature of water. I am a bit of chem buff (need to be considering I married one) so let me try out a few things. My first two points don't affect the sea level, but are interesting, the third will.
1. Do you know what heavy water is? Look it up, it's inlightening.
2. Do you know the nature of ice? Blue ice?
3. It's the ice above sea level, even up on mountains that can/might/will raise the sea level, not the floating ice.
Now, back to my original point, we have warm-cold-warm-cold-warm documented in the world's history (climate I mean). The first warm cycle was early middle ages or so, then cold led to the dark ages, then warm to the rennaisance (yeah, I spelled it wrong I bet), then cold led to the 'little ice age' that spurred migration southward (caused by a volcano I believe), then warm, which we are still living in. The highest recorded carbon was in the early 1900's (from volcanos, I think), not now. I'm not saying that we humans don't need to clean up our act, but we are nothing when compared to the forces of nature. If you really want to understand what it takes to affect the climate, study vulcanology, then you'll understand why it would be so difficult for cars/coal to take the blame. Plus, cows/livestock really do put out a lot of carbon emissions, trust me, my uncle's a dairy farmer. Again, we may be helping it along (I'm not going to bother counting the ways), but so far we are following a standard cycle. The cycle may suck, but that's the way of things. If the world were to stagnate we'd be in far greater trouble. And trust me, having been to many conventions, many/most (approximately 90% and up, I know the stats, and trust me the scientists are being hushed up, but by whom?) scientists don't personally agree with the political stand on global warming. A true scientist would look at the data, look at the fact we have nothing but our current stand point to compare it to, and tell you we don't have the information to come to a conclusion. You have to understand the layers that surround our lovely planet before you can understand how anything more than space dust can affect us adversly. In any case, there is no proven way to change (notice I'm not saying 'help' because I don't know what the earth wants) the co2. Although, if global warming is correct, then the seas get warmer, which makes algae grow (and a ton of it), and down go the co2 ratings.
And for those who are worried about reefs, they won't disappear, they will move. And I'm sure that if the movement is drastic enough, all reef keepers will become instant millionaires with the stock you have at home. Wouldn't you love the job of saving fish and corals from the reef and relocating them to a better home? Heck, if you can create a living reef in your home, I'm sure the government, if only for tourist money, would want you to aquascape their coasts.
1. Do you know what heavy water is? Look it up, it's inlightening.
2. Do you know the nature of ice? Blue ice?
3. It's the ice above sea level, even up on mountains that can/might/will raise the sea level, not the floating ice.
Now, back to my original point, we have warm-cold-warm-cold-warm documented in the world's history (climate I mean). The first warm cycle was early middle ages or so, then cold led to the dark ages, then warm to the rennaisance (yeah, I spelled it wrong I bet), then cold led to the 'little ice age' that spurred migration southward (caused by a volcano I believe), then warm, which we are still living in. The highest recorded carbon was in the early 1900's (from volcanos, I think), not now. I'm not saying that we humans don't need to clean up our act, but we are nothing when compared to the forces of nature. If you really want to understand what it takes to affect the climate, study vulcanology, then you'll understand why it would be so difficult for cars/coal to take the blame. Plus, cows/livestock really do put out a lot of carbon emissions, trust me, my uncle's a dairy farmer. Again, we may be helping it along (I'm not going to bother counting the ways), but so far we are following a standard cycle. The cycle may suck, but that's the way of things. If the world were to stagnate we'd be in far greater trouble. And trust me, having been to many conventions, many/most (approximately 90% and up, I know the stats, and trust me the scientists are being hushed up, but by whom?) scientists don't personally agree with the political stand on global warming. A true scientist would look at the data, look at the fact we have nothing but our current stand point to compare it to, and tell you we don't have the information to come to a conclusion. You have to understand the layers that surround our lovely planet before you can understand how anything more than space dust can affect us adversly. In any case, there is no proven way to change (notice I'm not saying 'help' because I don't know what the earth wants) the co2. Although, if global warming is correct, then the seas get warmer, which makes algae grow (and a ton of it), and down go the co2 ratings.
And for those who are worried about reefs, they won't disappear, they will move. And I'm sure that if the movement is drastic enough, all reef keepers will become instant millionaires with the stock you have at home. Wouldn't you love the job of saving fish and corals from the reef and relocating them to a better home? Heck, if you can create a living reef in your home, I'm sure the government, if only for tourist money, would want you to aquascape their coasts.
autofreak44
Active Member
i prefer to be arrogant.. haha
but seriously, i love inovation and helping out the environment. im still waiting for the car that runs on water. all we need is a realy small knife, and we can cut the molecules into oxygen and hyrdogen, two powerful and unstable substances
what do you guys think? i think thats some gnarly inovation right there.
who would have though...
btw the whole running cars on corn is total crap, im thinkin more biodiesel.
does anyone here know what the largest source of greenhouse gases is?
what do you guys think? i think thats some gnarly inovation right there.
btw the whole running cars on corn is total crap, im thinkin more biodiesel.
does anyone here know what the largest source of greenhouse gases is?
jovial
Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well if you ever want to give me an answer I can use to my question I am willing to hear it. You have confused me greatly as you've sidetracked the question, claimed one thing, denied it and claimed another. If you do not know the answer there is no shame in that, I do not know that is why I asked. What bothers me is missinformation. You said the volume does not change, which is does. Volume changes with temperature. You have said that ice is denser then water, which is isn't. You have mentioned information that is not applicable to the situation, (i.e. heavy water). If you do not see the error in your statements and how they do not answer my inital question of how ice caps melting raises sea level then I suppose I can never convince you. I you still wish to convince me of something feel free, I'm sure I will check back occationally between comercials of the Apprentice.
OK
Your being defensive. If it makes you feel better to believe this go ahead. Have a nice day.
Well if you ever want to give me an answer I can use to my question I am willing to hear it. You have confused me greatly as you've sidetracked the question, claimed one thing, denied it and claimed another. If you do not know the answer there is no shame in that, I do not know that is why I asked. What bothers me is missinformation. You said the volume does not change, which is does. Volume changes with temperature. You have said that ice is denser then water, which is isn't. You have mentioned information that is not applicable to the situation, (i.e. heavy water). If you do not see the error in your statements and how they do not answer my inital question of how ice caps melting raises sea level then I suppose I can never convince you. I you still wish to convince me of something feel free, I'm sure I will check back occationally between comercials of the Apprentice.
OK
Your being defensive. If it makes you feel better to believe this go ahead. Have a nice day.
jovial
Member
Originally Posted by autofreak44
i prefer to be arrogant.. haha
but seriously, i love inovation and helping out the environment. im still waiting for the car that runs on water. all we need is a realy small knife, and we can cut the molecules into oxygen and hyrdogen, two powerful and unstable substances
what do you guys think? i think thats some gnarly inovation right there.
who would have though...
btw the whole running cars on corn is total crap, im thinkin more biodiesel.
does anyone here know what the largest source of greenhouse gases is?
Cows
... methane?
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/g...tes/title.html
i prefer to be arrogant.. haha
what do you guys think? i think thats some gnarly inovation right there.
btw the whole running cars on corn is total crap, im thinkin more biodiesel.
does anyone here know what the largest source of greenhouse gases is?
Cows
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/g...tes/title.html