Ice is Less Dense Than Water, But It Can't Be Applied To Ice Caps
May 5th 2007 13:53
This is one of those things that can easily be understood if you think about it for more than two minutes.
Ice is less dense than water, it's an interesting phenomenon with H20 where its V structure forces it to expand as it solidifies. Hence if you have an ice cube in water as the ice cube melts the water level decreases.
Comparing this to ice caps and arguing you can't assume that the melting ice caps means sea levels will rise is extremely short sited. Ice caps have layers of snow and ice that builds up to form land, it's all congested in the one area.
As the ice melts into water it flows into the oceans, while the total volume of the water may be less than that of the ice and snow it is no longer layered upon itself to form land, it is flowing into the ocean.
While I don't appreciate alarmist stories and perhaps melting ice caps may not pose the most assumed danger of rising sea levels, they will cause other problems. An entire ecosystem will be destroyed which will automatically extinct several species of animals that live there and perhaps even whales which migrate to the poles. The melting ice will create fresh water which will also reduce the oceans salinity which will kill even more creatures that rely on the oceans mixture.
The common rebuttal is that using short term statistics is in error, using theories such as 'were headed out of the last ice age' is even more laughable as it does not rely on any facts besides hypothesis based on such and such theoretical occurrences that may or may not happen after an ice age.
Laurence Hecht takes this to extra-ordinary levels, claiming that "No short-term climate trend can tell us that, because the primary determinants of Earth's climate are based on orbital-astronomical cycles of 21,000-, 40,000-, and 100,000-year duration."
He's playing a distraction technique here, playing down actual statistics (be it short term or long term, her definition of long is thousands of years) and trumping up earths orbital patterns as the be all end all.
Obviously he’s mistaken in that, while I do believe humanity is not going to be the sole cause of climate change on planet earth I don’t see it as an excuse to shift blame (or reason) for the changing climate of the planet on natural occurrences, both go hand in hand. We are not a separate entity to this planet, we are a part of it just as much as it is a part of us, we have to understand that and do our research based on that simple fact instead of like stubborn kids take extremes on either side of the fence.
Why should we not? If you in all honesty think were on either sides of the extreme you should do some serious self analysis, even Laurence has been dealt the tough end of ambiguity in the arguments of polar ice caps, while reasoning that were moving out of an ice age,
The other fact stated in the same article is that ‘a mountain of ice in the center of Greenland has been growing over the recent decade’.
Surely if were moving out of an ice age all the ice should be melting, not forming, or if were moving into an ice age then ice should be forming, not melting. Neither end holds true, some ice is melting, some ice is forming. This is another indication of why basing our entire research on theories of what might have happened thousands and thousands of years ago is inherently flawed, but not to be ignored.
While statistics can be manipulated to prove anything it does not make the statistics any less true and as such it does not give us the right to ignore them, it will be stupid to jump onto another set of statistics (or in this case theories) that simply sings the song some people want to hear while completely ignoring the ones that don't sound appealing.
It is interesting to note that all those who are solid on either side of the ‘debate’ speak of their views and the facts backing them (or favoring them) as law, for instance Laurence says
The most obvious question that arises is why? Why is it that short term can’t tell us anything about our involvement with the planet? Why should the prediction of the future of earths climate be based only on orbital-astronomical cycles that happened thousands of years ago?
From Laurence’s perspective it’s because it sounds cool, it sounds appealing, because it supports his line of thinking, it supports what he wants to think. Does that mean we should ignore other facts that doesn’t sing to the tune he likes to hear? Of course not.
It is important to take into account the earths natural processes with relation to global climate change it does not in anyway mean we should not take a look at our own involvement with the planet.
The earths changing climate is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon which is why anyone who bases their entire belief and standing on it based on one set of facts is short sited to say the least.
Ice is less dense than water, it's an interesting phenomenon with H20 where its V structure forces it to expand as it solidifies. Hence if you have an ice cube in water as the ice cube melts the water level decreases.
Comparing this to ice caps and arguing you can't assume that the melting ice caps means sea levels will rise is extremely short sited. Ice caps have layers of snow and ice that builds up to form land, it's all congested in the one area.
As the ice melts into water it flows into the oceans, while the total volume of the water may be less than that of the ice and snow it is no longer layered upon itself to form land, it is flowing into the ocean.
While I don't appreciate alarmist stories and perhaps melting ice caps may not pose the most assumed danger of rising sea levels, they will cause other problems. An entire ecosystem will be destroyed which will automatically extinct several species of animals that live there and perhaps even whales which migrate to the poles. The melting ice will create fresh water which will also reduce the oceans salinity which will kill even more creatures that rely on the oceans mixture.
The common rebuttal is that using short term statistics is in error, using theories such as 'were headed out of the last ice age' is even more laughable as it does not rely on any facts besides hypothesis based on such and such theoretical occurrences that may or may not happen after an ice age.
Laurence Hecht takes this to extra-ordinary levels, claiming that "No short-term climate trend can tell us that, because the primary determinants of Earth's climate are based on orbital-astronomical cycles of 21,000-, 40,000-, and 100,000-year duration."
He's playing a distraction technique here, playing down actual statistics (be it short term or long term, her definition of long is thousands of years) and trumping up earths orbital patterns as the be all end all.
Obviously he’s mistaken in that, while I do believe humanity is not going to be the sole cause of climate change on planet earth I don’t see it as an excuse to shift blame (or reason) for the changing climate of the planet on natural occurrences, both go hand in hand. We are not a separate entity to this planet, we are a part of it just as much as it is a part of us, we have to understand that and do our research based on that simple fact instead of like stubborn kids take extremes on either side of the fence.
Why should we not? If you in all honesty think were on either sides of the extreme you should do some serious self analysis, even Laurence has been dealt the tough end of ambiguity in the arguments of polar ice caps, while reasoning that were moving out of an ice age,
It should be understood that the Earth is in an Ice Age today. The presence of numerous glaciers and the huge Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets tell us this. The question is: When is the Northern Hemisphere going to re-enter a period of glacial advance like the one that just ended about 10-12,000 years ago? The orbital cycles tell us that we are due for a new glaciation. In the past, the 100,000-year cycles of heavy glaciation were punctuated by a melt back or interglacial period, lasting from 9,000 to 12,000 years.
The other fact stated in the same article is that ‘a mountain of ice in the center of Greenland has been growing over the recent decade’.
Surely if were moving out of an ice age all the ice should be melting, not forming, or if were moving into an ice age then ice should be forming, not melting. Neither end holds true, some ice is melting, some ice is forming. This is another indication of why basing our entire research on theories of what might have happened thousands and thousands of years ago is inherently flawed, but not to be ignored.
While statistics can be manipulated to prove anything it does not make the statistics any less true and as such it does not give us the right to ignore them, it will be stupid to jump onto another set of statistics (or in this case theories) that simply sings the song some people want to hear while completely ignoring the ones that don't sound appealing.
It is interesting to note that all those who are solid on either side of the ‘debate’ speak of their views and the facts backing them (or favoring them) as law, for instance Laurence says
No short-term climate trend can tell us that, because the primary determinants of Earth's climate are based on orbital-astronomical cycles of 21,000-, 40,000-, and 100,000-year duration. Understanding these orbital cycles is the key to being able to interpret for yourself, with a clear head, the mass of propaganda dished out every day by the global warming lobby, and to seeing why global warming itself is a myth.
The most obvious question that arises is why? Why is it that short term can’t tell us anything about our involvement with the planet? Why should the prediction of the future of earths climate be based only on orbital-astronomical cycles that happened thousands of years ago?
From Laurence’s perspective it’s because it sounds cool, it sounds appealing, because it supports his line of thinking, it supports what he wants to think. Does that mean we should ignore other facts that doesn’t sing to the tune he likes to hear? Of course not.
It is important to take into account the earths natural processes with relation to global climate change it does not in anyway mean we should not take a look at our own involvement with the planet.
The earths changing climate is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon which is why anyone who bases their entire belief and standing on it based on one set of facts is short sited to say the least.
| 54 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Nickoftime's Sanity Corner
very informative blog and quiet true..you have to take into consideration the natural changes the Earth goes through all on it's own...
However, you can't simply stick your head in the sand and pretend that human beings aren't helping those processes along with pollution and an absolute disregard for nature and the environment...
Anyone who does, IS very short sighted..I call that the "baa baa" mentality, and the people who have it are referred to as "Sheeple" people who act like sheep and believe everything their governments tell them...
You have to go against the grain sometimes in order to learn the truth...
Great blog!
Take care,
Nick
Comment by Anonymous