Ignoramus13009 wrote:

If you have a vacation house in Florida, you may soon need a submarine
to visit it.

But on the bright side, Florida will quit screwing up elections

Wes wrote:

Ignoramus13009 wrote:

If you have a vacation house in Florida, you may soon need a submarine
to visit it.

But on the bright side, Florida will quit screwing up elections


It's all the idiots that move here from up north that screw it up.


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:44:43 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

Ignoramus13009 wrote:

If you have a vacation house in Florida, you may soon need a submarine
to visit it.

But on the bright side, Florida will quit screwing up elections

Did you guys forget? FACT: Most icebergs and shelves, plus the vast
majority of the Arctic region, are already displacing all the water
they're going to, so even if they melt completely, there will be ZERO
change in the sea level.

As to Florida, one can only hope.

--
All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring.
We must never, ever be boring.
-- Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters, 1999

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:44:43 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

Ignoramus13009 wrote:

If you have a vacation house in Florida, you may soon need a submarine
to visit it.

But on the bright side, Florida will quit screwing up elections

Did you guys forget? FACT: Most icebergs and shelves, plus the vast
majority of the Arctic region, are already displacing all the water
they're going to, so even if they melt completely, there will be ZERO
change in the sea level.

As to Florida, one can only hope.

--
All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring.
We must never, ever be boring.
-- Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters, 1999


I'm not sure its that simple:
1) What about thermal expansion causing the rise rather than the added
"melted ice"?
2) What if the ice that enters the water was coupled to land rather than
floating - surely this would increase depth?

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:03:11 +0900, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Den" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:44:43 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Wes
quickly quoth:

Ignoramus13009 wrote:

If you have a vacation house in Florida, you may soon need a submarine
to visit it.

But on the bright side, Florida will quit screwing up elections

Did you guys forget? FACT: Most icebergs and shelves, plus the vast
majority of the Arctic region, are already displacing all the water
they're going to, so even if they melt completely, there will be ZERO
change in the sea level.

I'm not sure its that simple:
1) What about thermal expansion causing the rise rather than the added
"melted ice"?
2) What if the ice that enters the water was coupled to land rather than
floating - surely this would increase depth?

Yes, it's complex and I don't know all the facets, as I'm sure all the
researchers are still grappling with finding them. Add the fact that
Mother Nature is taking care of Earth, too. While the shelf is
breaking off one side of Antarctica, the depth of snowpack on the
other 90% is increasing. Where it melts in one section of the ocean,
it builds on land elsewhere. She is no dummy. Just man is. First, for
spewing all that crap into the atmosphere, second for the arrogance to
think that any global change is all his fault. Third for doing the
wrong things about it after the two other mistakes. Kyoto Protocol is
about as effective as a limp dick and an unwilling lady friend. It's
all about controlling power, and we're not talking Utilities here,
folks. Algore stands to make millions on the carbon credit scam alone.
Feh!

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

Den wrote:

I'm not sure its that simple:
1) What about thermal expansion causing the rise rather than the added
"melted ice"?

How much do yo think water, in liquid form, expands?


2) What if the ice that enters the water was coupled to land rather than
floating - surely this would increase depth?


Exactly how much of the ice is over land? What is the exact median
thickness of that ice?


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:20:47 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Den wrote:

I'm not sure its that simple:
1) What about thermal expansion causing the rise rather than the added
"melted ice"?

How much do yo think water, in liquid form, expands?


Ah! Now this explains why all those glasses, left over from the
party, overflowed onto the floor as the ice melted.

Or not...

G

Gunner

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:20:47 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Den wrote:

I'm not sure its that simple:
1) What about thermal expansion causing the rise rather than the added
"melted ice"?

How much do yo think water, in liquid form, expands?

Ah! Now this explains why all those glasses, left over from the
party, overflowed onto the floor as the ice melted.

Or not...

G

Gunner


Only if you don't need a snorkel, and glass belly button. Their only
advantage is that they'll never need a colonoscopy, because their heads
are lodged so tight, they prevent any buildup of other crap.


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:52:10 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:20:47 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Den wrote:

I'm not sure its that simple:
1) What about thermal expansion causing the rise rather than the added
"melted ice"?

How much do yo think water, in liquid form, expands?


Ah! Now this explains why all those glasses, left over from the
party, overflowed onto the floor as the ice melted.

Or not...

G

I hadn't paid quite enough attention to his theory. _Ice_ expands a
bit, not water. The OP was bassackwards.

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:52:10 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:20:47 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Den wrote:

I'm not sure its that simple:
1) What about thermal expansion causing the rise rather than the added
"melted ice"?

How much do yo think water, in liquid form, expands?

Ah! Now this explains why all those glasses, left over from the
party, overflowed onto the floor as the ice melted.

Or not...

G

I hadn't paid quite enough attention to his theory. _Ice_ expands a
bit, not water. The OP was bassackwards.


OK I'm getting tired of this BS.
Water has a maximum density at 4 deg C and from that point to 100 deg
changes about 4.16 percent so for a change that has been kicked
around, even the worst case by the Greenes, it would be almost un-
measurable.
If you are intrested in the real numbers here they are from the
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics:
4deg C density 999.9750 kg/m cubed (wish there was math fonts)
100deg C 958.3665 kg/ m cubed
Thats the 4.16%
Now if the temp of the entire ocean change by even 5 deg it would
be 999.7838 kg/m cubed which is a change of .019 %
I don't see any attempt to claim the Entire ocean could change
by that in any event.
...lew...

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:10:42 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:


Now if the temp of the entire ocean change by even 5 deg it would
be 999.7838 kg/m cubed which is a change of .019 %
I don't see any attempt to claim the Entire ocean could change
by that in any event.
...lew...


Don't forget the average depth of the oceans is over 10,000 ft; .019%
of 10,000 is 19 ft.

Using numbers for seawater rather than fresh, I get an increase in
water level of 10 ft for a 1 degree C increase in temp from 10 to 11
degrees. (Ignoring the increase in surface area of the oceans due to
coastal inundation, but you get the point.)

--
Ned Simmons

Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:10:42 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:

Now if the temp of the entire ocean change by even 5 deg it would
be 999.7838 kg/m cubed which is a change of .019 %
I don't see any attempt to claim the Entire ocean could change
by that in any event.
...lew...

Don't forget the average depth of the oceans is over 10,000 ft; .019%
of 10,000 is 19 ft.

Using numbers for seawater rather than fresh, I get an increase in
water level of 10 ft for a 1 degree C increase in temp from 10 to 11
degrees. (Ignoring the increase in surface area of the oceans due to
coastal inundation, but you get the point.)


So, you are saying all the water in all the oceans will rise at the
same rate?


--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:06:57 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Ned
Simmons quickly quoth:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:10:42 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:


Now if the temp of the entire ocean change by even 5 deg it would
be 999.7838 kg/m cubed which is a change of .019 %
I don't see any attempt to claim the Entire ocean could change
by that in any event.
...lew...


Don't forget the average depth of the oceans is over 10,000 ft; .019%
of 10,000 is 19 ft.

Using numbers for seawater rather than fresh, I get an increase in
water level of 10 ft for a 1 degree C increase in temp from 10 to 11
degrees. (Ignoring the increase in surface area of the oceans due to
coastal inundation, but you get the point.)

To make it more interesing, is that figure from increased daytime
temps or nighttime temps?

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:14:27 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:10:42 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:

Now if the temp of the entire ocean change by even 5 deg it would
be 999.7838 kg/m cubed which is a change of .019 %
I don't see any attempt to claim the Entire ocean could change
by that in any event.
...lew...

Don't forget the average depth of the oceans is over 10,000 ft; .019%
of 10,000 is 19 ft.

Using numbers for seawater rather than fresh, I get an increase in
water level of 10 ft for a 1 degree C increase in temp from 10 to 11
degrees. (Ignoring the increase in surface area of the oceans due to
coastal inundation, but you get the point.)


So, you are saying all the water in all the oceans will rise at the
same rate?

No, that's what Lew said in what was apparently an appeal to common
sense in order to allay fears about a warming ocean. I merely pointed
out the hazard in making such an argument without checking your
numbers.

--
Ned Simmons

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:25:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



To make it more interesing, is that figure from increased daytime
temps or nighttime temps?

Nothing to do with day or night. It's on account of these folks giving
up calories to the ocean when they shouldn't be...
http://gowanuslounge.blogspot.com/20...ney-again.html

I picked that page because I was hoping to spot an old friend of ours
who swims weekly with the Polar Bears at Coney Island, but I don't see
her.

--
Ned Simmons

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:04:15 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:14:27 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:10:42 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:

Now if the temp of the entire ocean change by even 5 deg it would
be 999.7838 kg/m cubed which is a change of .019 %
I don't see any attempt to claim the Entire ocean could change
by that in any event.
...lew...

Don't forget the average depth of the oceans is over 10,000 ft; .019%
of 10,000 is 19 ft.

Using numbers for seawater rather than fresh, I get an increase in
water level of 10 ft for a 1 degree C increase in temp from 10 to 11
degrees. (Ignoring the increase in surface area of the oceans due to
coastal inundation, but you get the point.)


So, you are saying all the water in all the oceans will rise at the
same rate?

No, that's what Lew said in what was apparently an appeal to common
sense in order to allay fears about a warming ocean. I merely pointed
out the hazard in making such an argument without checking your
numbers.

Good guidance, Ned ... but you might check your numbers too. Try
entering 10000*.019% into Google. It comes back with 1.9, as does
MathCAD.

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:43:44 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don
Foreman quickly quoth:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:04:15 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:14:27 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ned Simmons wrote:

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:10:42 -0600, Lew Hartswick
wrote:

Now if the temp of the entire ocean change by even 5 deg it would
be 999.7838 kg/m cubed which is a change of .019 %
I don't see any attempt to claim the Entire ocean could change
by that in any event.
...lew...

Don't forget the average depth of the oceans is over 10,000 ft; .019%
of 10,000 is 19 ft.

Using numbers for seawater rather than fresh, I get an increase in
water level of 10 ft for a 1 degree C increase in temp from 10 to 11
degrees. (Ignoring the increase in surface area of the oceans due to
coastal inundation, but you get the point.)


So, you are saying all the water in all the oceans will rise at the
same rate?

No, that's what Lew said in what was apparently an appeal to common
sense in order to allay fears about a warming ocean. I merely pointed
out the hazard in making such an argument without checking your
numbers.

Good guidance, Ned ... but you might check your numbers too. Try
entering 10000*.019% into Google. It comes back with 1.9, as does
MathCAD.

James Hanson, claiming 80', apparently needs math tutoring along with
his rectal/cranial inversion therapy.

Algore says 20'.

According to Horner's book "Zwally, et al. (2005), found that the
combined net loss of ice from Greenland/ Antarctica would account for
a sea-level rise of 0.05mm per year during 1992-2002. At that rate, it
would takw a mere millennium before sea levels shot up by a full five
centimeters." European satellites show between 0.03 and 0.05mm. This
is a far different figure than Algore's 6,095.95mm, isn't it? Zwally
gets 5mm for that same century of heating. Hmmm...

The IPCC thinks the rise might be between 14 and 44cm. According to
Horner, the Earth has seen this type of rise before. Pfof. Morner
visited the Maldives and discovered that the sea level has fallen over
the past 30 years, and that the islanders had survived much higher sea
levels in the past.

Me? I'm not gonna sweat it.

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:43:44 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:


Good guidance, Ned ... but you might check your numbers too. Try
entering 10000*.019% into Google. It comes back with 1.9, as does
MathCAD.

Oops, I just caught myself entering 1e5 instead of 1e4 for 10000,
which makes me nervous wondering when I've made the same mistake.
Hopefully not when I told my wife she can retire when our youngest is
out of college. g

--
Ned Simmons