MEMES
- Thread starter CAJUNLAWYER
- Start date
In memory of Clint Eats Wood
It would be tough to get my shredded wheat any drier? And the Trix is gone to quick to need resealing.
My SIL (Ray) works at the massive General Mills cereal plant in Sharonville, OH. He says they are capable of using resealable bags but as the monkey said when he peed on the cash register "that'll soon run into money".
#1 please...
This makes no sense at all. How could sea level remain constant when the sky is falling?
Follow the science!
Protocall_Design
Vendor
They are telling us that the glaciers are all melting at a horrendous rate, and the sea level is about to drown half of us. Yet it has remained at a constant level for 400+ years. I will believe the planet, not the fear mongers.
One more...
mckenney99
Member
I'm not the brightest bulb in the box so maybe my reasoning is faulty. If you fill a glass with ice and water to the very rim and set it out so the ice melts, as the ice melts the water level does not rise to overflow the glass.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
FWIW, you are correct. The level of the liquid in a container full of ice and water will not rise as the ice melts. Due to the expansion water experiences when freezing, ice displaces roughly 7% less volume than the water that makes up the ice.
So roughly 7% of a piece of ice sticks up above the level of the surrounding water. As the ice melts there is less of it floating above the level of the surrounding liquid water, and when the ice is completely melted the level of the water will remain the same. This is a basic physics principle of buoyancy.
The ASSUMPTION behind your post is that the ice in question is floating in the water. However, the theory of the climatologists is that the polar ice caps that are melting are NOT floating in the water - they are sitting on solid land. So as that ice melts the water from the ice caps will run off into the surrounding oceans and thereby RAISE the level of the water.
Unfortunately for these climatologists, this has NOT proven to be the case. The ocean levels have not raised appreciably in the short period of time that humans have been recording such measurements. What's more, a fair number of the same people who are most loudly and vehemently proclaiming the impending doom of rising ocean levels brought on by climate change, are at the same time also buying ocean-front property in locations like Martha's Vineyard.
That begs the question: if they REALLY believe the oceans are rising due to climate change, and that the coastal areas of the exiting continents will soon be flooded as a result, then why the HELL are so many of them buying multi-million dollar coastal estates that, according to their claims about climate change, will soon end up UNDERWATER? It just doesn't make sense.
Something about this picture just doesn't pass the "sniff-test".
Either they don't believe the theories they are pushing about climate change raising the levels of the oceans, which means they are LYING to us, or they are idiots to be investing in ocean-front properties which will soon be underwater. Either way this brings up the question of whether or not we should rely on their judgement about such matters.
THEY can't have it BOTH ways...
Last edited:
Adding to BC38's reply, when something is floating in water, it displaces it's own mass of water, so whether a boat, an ice cube or a wood chip is floating in the water, the level doesn't change because the object melts or dissolves.
Looking another way, if the water is at a certain level marked by a line, whether it is all water, or water full of free floating objects, as long as the level is at the line, the weight (mass) of the glass contents is the same.
Last edited:
Well, not to be wet blanket re the sea level isn't rising, but the counter arguments to the above are discussed here, for those with interest:
Is sea-level rise exaggerated? – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Is sea-level rise exaggerated? – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
I took a Historical Geology class back in the 80's and we had to calculate sea level rise if all the glaciers were to melt. Not sure what the answer was, but about 43 feet sticks in my mind.
I do remember thinking that at approximately 403' elevation here in my part of East Texas it just meant I would just be closer to the coast
Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
I do remember thinking that at approximately 403' elevation here in my part of East Texas it just meant I would just be closer to the coast
Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk
