It's getting windier. - Page 7

Bifta · 08-01-2005, 17:53

We had a massive storm last night, it's been raining now solidly for a few day's and I'm hoping it doesn't turn out like the last major storm we had ..

http://www.derryonline.com/flood/

BBKing · 08-01-2005, 17:56

Don't know about you soft norveners. but down south I can vividly remember the gales of 1987 and 1990, in the first our drive was blocked by a large fallen branch, several other trees had to be taken down and the whole area was cut off by fallen trees, in 1990 a chunk of the house blew off (this being a fairly substantial Victorian vicarage). The subsequent scaffolding was excellent fun for climbing.

**Maggy** · 08-01-2005, 18:34

This thread has proven to be much more interesting than it's title would one to believe.

Theodoric · 08-01-2005, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by nffc

It does, but 1 litre of ice will contain less water molecules than 1 litre of water.

The whole reason ice floats is because it's less dense than water.

Overall if all the ice was to melt I'm pretty sure that the water level will fall due to the volume decrease. As has been explained countless times.

[It's still pretty windy though]

The water level will stay the same. The upthrust on the floating ice equals the weight of water dispaced (Archimedes Principle). As the ice is floating, the upthrust equals the weight of the ice (the ice would either sink or rise if it wasn't). Therefore the weight of water displaced equals the weight of ice. Therefore when the ice melts it is converted into a weight of water equal to the weight of water displaced by the ice. Therefore it exactly fills the "hole" you can imagine left by the melted ice, so there is no change in water level.

08-01-2005, 19:38

...disregarding the effect of changes in density, which I suspect is what nffc was referring to. All a bit acedemic though, as the main danger is from melting ice which is currently ON LAND.

bopdude · 08-01-2005, 19:42

Well we're stuck on the road, see my blog entry, we have seen about 6 wagons of various sizes being towed by recovery vehicles in all manner of shapes having been blown over. As for ourselves, we're stuck in a mini-bus with no heating

Shaun · 08-01-2005, 20:17

There's a very intresting program about this on Channel 4 now.

ian@huth · 08-01-2005, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theodoric

The water level will stay the same. The upthrust on the floating ice equals the weight of water dispaced (Archimedes Principle). As the ice is floating, the upthrust equals the weight of the ice (the ice would either sink or rise if it wasn't). Therefore the weight of water displaced equals the weight of ice. Therefore when the ice melts it is converted into a weight of water equal to the weight of water displaced by the ice. Therefore it exactly fills the "hole" you can imagine left by the melted ice, so there is no change in water level.

Absolutely correct.

A very interesting article with some experiments to prove the facts at http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/blueplan...eriments.shtml

WARNING If you are worried about the effect of the ice caps melting and live within a couple of hundred feet of sea level then DO NOT read that article.

Richard M · 08-01-2005, 20:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

This thread has proven to be much more interesting than it's title would one to believe.

Very informative.

08-01-2005, 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellwear

There's a very intresting program about this on Channel 4 now.

Watched it myself, and must say it was really good. I personally thought that the findings of the program where rather funny. To stop carbon emissions we need to release the ''nuclear gene'', from its much discredited bottle. Clasic.

BBKing · 08-01-2005, 22:16

Hum - well, nuclear hasn't quite solved the problems dating back to the 1950s yet - waste disposal, vulnerability to accidents/terrorism/natural disasters. Rather than turning back to yesterday's ideas why not cut out the middle man - we live on a huge nuclear reactor, after all (most of the Earth's internal heat comes from radioactive decay). If we can use this directly rather than digging it up, compressing it, transporting it, locking it in expensive containers and then using it to heat water, this would seem to be a good solution - it's not going to run out any time soon.

dellwear - thanks for the kind wishes, but really a night of disturbed sleep and being sat on at 5am by an annoyed baby isn't quite in the same league as what's happening in Carlisle right now. Good luck to them.

AndrewJ · 08-01-2005, 22:18

We are close to having Nuclear Fusion which will replace Fision, Fision is agreed unstable but our best option right now.

Fusion is much safer and test power stations are in France and Russia so I have heard.

BBKing · 08-01-2005, 22:41

I'll look it up somewhere, but fusion isn't exactly clean - after all, a hydrogen bomb (which all modern nuclear weapons are) is a fusion reaction set off by a fission device.

Raistlin · 08-01-2005, 23:16

So, if the polar ice caps melt and we do end up with more sea all around us..........will that be good news for the people who make a living by going out to sea in tiny boats and fission all day?

(Sorry, couldn't resist it

)

AndrewJ · 08-01-2005, 23:18

it would end up being more stable as a explosion is not going to happen, so a well built structure would contain a breakdown of the system.

I know a little on fusion technology but they wont release everything, but the ingredients look much more friendly then fisions.