Re: It's getting windier.
 

Although I agree with you and do belive global warming exists it should be noted that there is no conslusive proof that our actions are leading to an increase in global warming. The world is heating up but this could well be natrual.

Before the last ice age it was very hot then the world screwed up because of this and the ice age happpened (like a healing effect) and scientists found out this occurs natrually and we are due for one in a few thousand years.

Also dispite the appearance of recent events they are not down to global warming

Re: It's getting windier.
 

*wonders whether to tell jimbo that it's the Welsh for 'Mouth of the River Tawe'*

Norwich, Ipswich and Ely are all above sea level, although not much. The highest point in my home county of Suffolk is 55 metres, we used to need ice axes and oxygen climbing that. Ooo Arr.

Dinosaurs farting? Someone's blowing smoke - we've had a good few Ice Ages since then - the Earth warms up and cools down all the time, it's never steady. Back in the 1970s the worry was of global *cooling*, not warming, and in the 50s it was nuclear winter (so there's your all-American solution to global warming - nookuler missals, yessirreee).

Actually, since we'll run out of fossil fuels to burn fairly soon, the risk is not of global warming but of killing each other off in energy wars, unless someone comes up with a better idea than nuclear reactors - hot rocks, tidal, fusion...

More windy now? There was a harrowing Timewatch repeat on last night about the Great Storm of 1953, which flooded a lot of areas along the East Coast in a similar manner (although nowhere near as destructive) to the recent tsunami - most of those who died were the poor who could only afford to live in low-lying areas. Plus ca change.

Re: It's getting windier.
 

:p:

Re: It's getting windier.
 

It's pretty windy here now. I can hear it over my PC speakers and it's playing havoc with my tv signal :(

Re: It's getting windier.
 

The sooner we become self sufficient the better IMO, though currently not many people can afford to cover thier roof in solar panels, and those that can would find it wont pay off due to lack of sunlight in this coutry :)


EDITED: took out my first paragraph because I relised I had read BBKings post wrong.

Re: It's getting windier.
 

i can feel wind from where i'm sitting, bloody windows - too drafty :mad:
*gets up to put tissue in the gaps around my window frame* :Yikes:

:)

Re: It's getting windier.
 

I am very glad I'm in Essex instead of Wales tonight!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4155795.stm

Re: It's getting windier.
 

Not too far from me here on the wirral, just glad we are relativeley high above sea level on this part of the wirral. There is also the road at the bottom of the hill I live on is actually a river bed so any flooding will head there first :)

Re: It's getting windier.
 

Global warming won't cause an increase in sea-level, it's all hype from militant fluffy types trying to get us to eat Tofu!

<Pay attention - here comes the dodgy science bit :D >

When you put Ice in a glass of water what happens to the level of the water? It raises (of course it does). As the ice melts does the level of the water continue to raise? No, it actually falls.

The reason that Ice floats is that it is actually less dense than water (water becomes less dense as it cools, in a complete contradiction to the normal scheme of things) and therefore it actually displaces more water (due to the increased volume of the ice) than it contains - enabling it to float.

It therefore stands to reason that the volume of water being displaced by the polar ice caps (ie the amount by which the sea-level has already risen due to their formation) is greater than the volume of water contained within them. So, when they melt, the water contained within them will actually take up less volume than the ice does which means that the sea level should fall slightly.

Obviously there is a large amount of ice above the water but this is only a small amount of ice compared to what is below the surface (the tip of the iceberg if you will) and should therefore have an almost negligable effect. I would expect the net result of complete polar ice cap meltage to be that the sea-levels will remain pretty much as they are at the moment.

<Dons a flame-proof suit and waits patiently>

Re: It's getting windier.
 

Um, are you serious?
How would the sea level not rise?

And quite how you worked out that an ice cube melting in a glass of water would not raise the water level is beyond me, unless you watched it for so long that the water evaporated.
Hope that flameproof suit works well. ;)

Re: It's getting windier.
 

Most of the ice is already below the water and therefore it's already raised the level, when it melts, the raise will only be from the equivalent water in the exposed part of the ice, which isn't actually that much.

Re: It's getting windier.
 

I would still rise though. :dozey:

Re: It's getting windier.
 

Re: It's getting windier.
 

If you think about it it actually makes perfect sense.....sort of.....

If you take 2 one litre containers and have one full of water and the other full of ice (by full, I mean filling the entire space within the container with no room inside for anything else). You will find that the one containing the water is heavier.
The reason for this is that as water cools (actually, as water cools past 4 degrees celsius) it becomes less dense (the connetions between the molecules actually start to expand again rather than continuing to contract).

So, something floats because it is less dense than the thing in which it is floating (ice is less dense than water). We also know that an object floating in a liquid will displace a quantity of that liquid which is equal to its volume.

We have a situation now where we have two things to consider.

1: If we put our 1 litre containers into a pool of water one at a time they will displace the same amount of water (ie that they will cause the level of water in the pool to raise by an equal amount) but.....
2: We know that there is less water in the container which has ice in it than there is in the one that has just water in it.

Now remove the containers from the equation but leave the contents. Initially the two water levels will be the same (they have both displaces equal quantities of water and so they have raised the levels by an equal amount). But, as the ice melts its volume will decrease. We know that the container holding the ice had less water in it so it stands to reason that there is now less water in the pool that we put the ice into than there is in the one that we put the water into.

The point here is: Putting an ice cube into a glass of water will raise the level of the water but as the ice melts it will revert to water which will take up less volume, therefore the displacement of the original water in the glass will be less, therefore the water level will fall (although it will still be slightly higher than it was before you put the ice in).

Does that help at all? Sorry it's long-winded and complicated, it took me a while to get this straight - oh, and it is stupidly late as well :D

Re: It's getting windier.
 

Sort of, but you have to remember than when the ice below the surface melts the water it turns back into will actually occupy less volume than the ice did. This means that the amount of water being displaced by the ice is greater than the amount of water contained within it. Ergo (I hate it when people use that word :D ) the level of water in the sea should fall.

But, as you say, there is the ice above the surface to take into account so it should all even itself out :D