Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

[mumblethrax]

I think he's referring to the fact that you can have a full glass of ice water in which the floating ice is actually above the top of the glass, but when the ice melts, the glass will not overflow (because the ice contracts when it melts). Archimedes stuff.

I would think the same principle would apply on a global scale, but I'm no expert.

This is generally true, but fails to take into consideration the difference in density between saltwater and freshwater.

 

[Upchurch]

I think he's referring to the fact that you can have a full glass of ice water in which the floating ice is actually above the top of the glass, but when the ice melts, the glass will not overflow (because the ice contracts when it melts). Archimedes stuff.

I would think the same principle would apply on a global scale, but I'm no expert.

I'll cop to the same ignorance.

However, The Archimedes thing would only work if all sea-ice were actually floating and not resting on a land mass, thus displacing less mass than the total mass of the ice itself. I don't know what the average ratio of free floating to land sitting ice is. My understanding is that Antarctica is mostly land sitting ice, but I could very well be wrong about that.

 

[Upchurch]

Just to add a little further on previous comments, {snip}

Ah, that helps. I had figured out about half of that, but you helped bridge the other half for me. Thanks.

 

[corplinx]

I'll cop to the same ignorance.

However, The Archimedes thing would only work if all sea-ice were actually floating and not resting on a land mass, thus displacing less mass than the total mass of the ice itself. I don't know what the average ratio of free floating to land sitting ice is. My understanding is that Antarctica is mostly land sitting ice, but I could very well be wrong about that.

The ice on land in antartica is thickening.

 

[Upchurch]

The ice on land in antartica is thickening.

Well, I now understand the theory about why that may be happening, but do we have any hard research that supports that?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I always like these doom and gloom books. Reminds me of the "End of the World", again! The earth has been warmer and colder than it is right now many times. I can't wait to read it.

Perhaps this is the next installment of the "Left Behind" series ....

I get the strange feeling that either Rove or Bush is up to something and we need to distract the unwashed masses by trashing Gore, even before his book/film is published.

Charlie (either that or just another slow news day) Monoxide

 

[varwoche]

Al Gore is releasing a new book on global warming as well as promoting the film where he scours the globe cherrypicking his data to promote his environmental agenda.

If that turns out to be true, let's hope he cherry-picks facts as opposed to pure speculation pulled from a crevice.

for the record, I haven't dont enough research on the subject of global warming to form an opinion about it

Clearly.

I am just anti-bull

Er, I'll leave that alone.

while sea-ice is melting (thus not increasing sea levels) the antarctic icecap is thickening.

While it's true that certain sections of the icecap thickened, I suggest you read up on this before falsely citing this cherry-pick as relevant to GW.

 

[Beerina]

seas to rise,

Is this actually happening? Can they walk up to a cement pier somewhere and show how it has risen over the years? How about a place like Holland or Venice, where they would have records centuries old? (Assuming they can separate out the sinking, ala New Orleans.) And in those cases, what are the natural variances over the decades and centuries?

 

[DavidJames]

Is this actually happening? Can they walk up to a cement pier somewhere and show how it has risen over the years? How about a place like Holland or Venice, where they would have records centuries old? (Assuming they can separate out the sinking, ala New Orleans.) And in those cases, what are the natural variances over the decades and centuries?

You may want to check the link I provided to an EPA report.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is this actually happening? Can they walk up to a cement pier somewhere and show how it has risen over the years? How about a place like Holland or Venice, where they would have records centuries old? (Assuming they can separate out the sinking, ala New Orleans.) And in those cases, what are the natural variances over the decades and centuries?

Yes, they can measure such changes. But of course, it's not that simple either, because local sea level changes can be different than global changes. The crust of the earth moves, land masses can rise and fall (that's what forms mountains), and local changes don't have to follow, or even be in the same direction as, global averages. I think there are regions of the globe where the local sea level (relative to the land) is dropping because the land is rising. Averages are just that, averages.

 

[Beerina]

An object of a given mass floating in a liquid will only raise the level of that liquid by an amount proportional to its weight, not matter it's density.

In other words, ice already floating on the ocean, like the Arctic cap, would not raise the sea level one millimeter should it entirely melth.

However, Greenland, and to a greater extent, Antarctica, would raise the sea level should they melt, since their ice is on land.

 

[varwoche]

In other words, ice already floating on the ocean, like the Arctic cap, would not raise the sea level one millimeter should it entirely melth.

Nonsense. Emphasis added...

Some scientists believe that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could slide into the oceans after a sustained warming, or if other factors raised sea level. The vulnerability of this ice sheet is poorly understood. It contains enough ice to raise sea level 6 meters

EPA

 

[Art Vandelay]

This is generally true, but fails to take into consideration the difference in density between saltwater and freshwater.

How so?

However, The Archimedes thing would only work if all sea-ice were actually floating and not resting on a land mass, thus displacing less mass than the total mass of the ice itself.

If it's on land, then it's not sea ice.

 

[Upchurch]

If it's on land, then it's not sea ice.

If it is only on land it's not sea ice.

 

[corplinx]

While it's true that certain sections of the icecap thickened, I suggest you read up on this before falsely citing this cherry-pick as relevant to GW.

Some ice is thickening, some is melting. If you cherrypick melting ice as evidence, its cherrypicking isnt it? That is my point. Excerpts I've read about that in the film Gore visits a melting glacier somewhere to hammer home the point that we humans are causing the melting.

You can do better than this Varwoche.

 

[Tony]

Descriptions I've read of the film describe him visiting some thawing glaciers and such. How can that not be cherrypicking?

Who wrote these "descriptions"?

 

[Renfield]

Ok, but the book isn't out yet and he said he hasn't researched global warming, yet he seems to have reached conclusions. Show us the "cherry picking" "bad advocacy" and "flawed logic". Remember, the book isn't out until April.

Yeah, but its Al Gore, so you just know its got to be creeeeeeee-azy right? do you really even need to think, if you're already a right thinking Amer-cun?

 

[Jocko]

Yeah, but its Al Gore, so you just know its got to be creeeeeeee-azy right? do you really even need to think, if you're already a right thinking Amer-cun?

In the same sense that Badnarik want to teach me about the Constitution;
In the same sense that Rev. Phelps wants to teach me about God's plan;
In the same sense that Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson wants to teach me about racial harmony;
That is the sense in which Al Gore wants to teach me about responsible environmental stewardship.

If that makes me an "unthinking" yet "right-thinking" (you have to explain that one to me sometime) American, then I guess that's what I am. But tell me, what do you call someone who blindly falls in line behind the loudest, stupidest proponent of a cause, even when that proponent has a dreadful track record of accuracy?

Is the volume of the message more important to you than the correctness of it?

 

[mumblethrax]

How so?

The buoyant force on an immersed object is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. Saltwater is denser than freshwater, so a freshwater iceberg, for example, will displace less saltwater than sea-ice will, but will take up the same volume upon melting. It helps to illustrate this principle if you think of an ice cube sitting atop a quantity of mercury: it will 'float high,' displacing only a small quantity of mercury, and then melt, raising the overall level of the liquid.

It can be pointed out that the floating freshwater ice is part of a glacial cycle, but the nature of that cycle is changing (for example, the Antarctic ice shelfs are disappearing at a rapid clip) which means that a smaller total volume of water is locked into that system, and we should expect sea levels to rise.

It's true that we should expect more precipitation in the Antarctic, but it's also true that total coverage is shrinking. From what I've read, the Antarctic is an an approximate state of equilibrium. The rest of the world's glaciers have lost about 6,000 cubic kilometers in volume since 1960.

 

[Upchurch]

Some ice is thickening, some is melting. If you cherrypick melting ice as evidence, its cherrypicking isnt it? That is my point. Excerpts I've read about that in the film Gore visits a melting glacier somewhere to hammer home the point that we humans are causing the melting.

well, now wait a minute, corp. It seems to me that you could very well be cherry picking yourself.

Do you have evidence that the ice caps are, as a whole, getting thicker? Or that it compensates for lost ice elsewhere? Does the fact that some ice is getting thicker negate the possibility that ice overall is melting or that humans are causing it?

(I'm not saying that it is or that it isn't. My point is that what you've presented is far from a conclusive argument.)