Fealiks Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Yeah, in the 20s when Maggie Thatcher invented TV, MTV played music. Or something. It was a long time ago, maybe the historians couldn't figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Fag and slag? What about the smoking ban? Young slag and slightly younger baby, perhaps, but no fags, unless you are BREAKING THE LAW. That was back in early 06, before the ban. There were plenty of slags. The afore mentioned establishment that pathetically, i can't even bring myself to type is also allegedly responsible for a ridiculous amount of rainforest destruction, approximately 2000 hectares A DAY. It was a fantastic place when i was a kid, even the mick and mac games were awesome but to learn what they're responsible for, just destroys all those childhood fantasies they created. They do alot for the elderly with clubs etc but my priorities are with the environment. Which they're failing with. On another note, Marks n Spencers seem to have good intentions on the subject of sustainability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Pity Marks and Sparks are a bit pricey, else I'd shop there often as they have decent eats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fealiks Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 How can one little pub be responsible for nearly 2 million acres of rainforests being cut down every year? Were they shaking the rain into their glasses and eating the bark? Maybe they needed extra room for a patio so they cut down some trees? Whatever the reason, there is no way they cut down that many rainforests a day. And besides, trees grow back. It's not like wood doesn't grow on trees for christ's sake. I don't think deforestation and all that is as big a problem it's made out to be. I haven't read up much on this but it doesn't add up that "milloins of treez r cut down evry day and ppl r dying from it". Maybe it's a little bit of a problem, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. People swallow anything that's fed to them but they shouldn't, they should be questioning everything and saying "hang on a minute this tastes weird", thinking about just how much forest there is in the world and how fast it would all be gone if this is all true and how if the ice is already in the water, melting it wont do **** to our sea levels. Careful what you eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Well, from someone who has read up on it, it's a bigger problem then you think. Just because tree's grow doesn't mean they always grow back after being chopped down. In fact, half the time, they plain don't grow back, as the animals that once lived in those tree's are no longer their to provide a decent fertilizer for the trees to grow back in. Plus, most of the time, when they're cut down they do so for the land, so if they put a great big highway through what used to be lush forest, those trees ain't coming back. Yes, a lot of what people say about deforestation is crap, it's not the soul cause of global warming for a start (if anything, we can put that down to the methane produced by ourselves and most cows (those two candidates being the biggest contributer)) and plus freshwater algae produces more oxygen than trees do. But, one problem scientists seem to have with deforestation is the fact that a good chunk of the Amazon hasn't been explored yet and is slowly being taken away. This means that certain rare plants an animals that live deep in the Amazon forest are being wiped out, and for all we know, such plants or animals could provide a great benefit to mankind (such as cures for certain illnesses and so on). But of course we'll never know if we lose the forests. As for ice melting not doing **** to our sea levels, you are aware ice floats right? If the ice were completely submerged then yes, it wouldn't make a difference (would even lower the sea levels if they melted), but since there are huge chunks out of the water (like the polar ice caps for instance) then of course it would make a difference. And not just to sea levels, that's a giant chunk of freshwater being dumped right into the Atlantic sea, salt water. If that happened, the salt water would sink and temperatures of the water would fluctuate causing shifts in major ocean currents... not good for our weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fealiks Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Ice melting will affect us, yeah, but it wont raise the sea levels, I'm surprised how so many people can't see how that is bull****. Just think about it for a minute. The ice is already in the water, which means melting it would just mean... less ice. Not more water. Less ice. I know I'm not going to miss that ice, and I also know that the sea isn't coming knocking at my door any time soon. As for the weather changes, I could do with a tan and a good snowball fight wouldn't hurt either. If you still don't believe me, fill a measuring jug to a certain amount and pop a few ice cubes in there. Take note of where the water level sits on the little numbery bit on the side (make sure to do this part after you put the ice in to avoid water displacement confusion). Leave it for a bit, let the ice melt. When you come back, you'll see that the water level is still the same as it was before the ice melted. The ice caps melting will do **** all to our sea levels. Fact. Also, I know this sounds really stupid (and it is) but if we get rid of loads of species that we have never seen before... well it won't matter that much will it? It's like crying over spilling some undiscovered liquid. Drinking it could have put hairs on your chest and gold on your teeth but it didn't and now it's all gone so you may as well bugger off and have a sandwich. Just being a blind optimist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Okay, fill up a water jug, put an ice cube in it, watch now it floats, half the cube (well, okay, not half, a bit more) is submerged, some is not. That means not as much water is being displaced as it should be. Push the ice cube down to submerge it fully, watch as the water rises... get it? Watching a tiny ice cube melt in a small jug is a poor experiment as water expands when frozen, and thus it's volume decreases when melting so the change to the amount of water in the jug would be miniscule. Try a giant ice block in a swimming pool and see the difference. And as for those species we don't know about dying, yes, we would be crying over spilt liquid we didn't know about, but if that liquid could cure a cancer, for instance, we'd be crying even harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fealiks Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Regardless of whether the ice is submerged or not, it's still in the water. When the ice melts, you aren't adding more water so why should the level of the water change? And while we cry we could be finding a different cure for cancer. As I said, it's a stupid view but it's optimistic enough for me and ignorance is bliss. la la la. I can't hear you, destroyed potential cure for cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrik Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I think you need to read Joshi's post again. Comprehend his explanation properly this time. And the reason people don't think it's bullsh*t is because it's already risen. Not only is there stacks of evidence compiled during the past few decades, but also evidence from previous ice ages. Sea level change isn't some myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaTurtle Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Regardless of whether the ice is submerged or not, it's still in the water. When the ice melts, you aren't adding more water so why should the level of the water change? Because liquids take up more room than solids. I'm definitely not an expert on this, but I do remember some A-level chemistry (or maybe it was GCSE?). The molecules in a solid don't move about. The molecules in a liquid do move and so are spread out more. So, even though you aren't adding more water, the volume of water is increasing because the molecules are moving further apart. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Regardless of whether the ice is submerged or not, it's still in the water. When the ice melts, you aren't adding more water so why should the level of the water change? For the love of Benji... fill a bath, put self into bath, notice how when you're not fully submerged, you're still in the water, now slowly submerge yourself and watch the water level rise, this is how displacement works. Ice is exactly the same, if there is ice above the water level, it is not displacing any of the water it is floating in, and thus when it melts, it all melts, so that above the water is adding to the water it is floating in. Ask a science teacher... As for that cure for cancer, I'm sure you'll feel the same way should you be diagnosed with some kind of cancer. Seaturtle, water expands when frozen so it would take up less space when melted, but you may be thinking of surface area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fealiks Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I'm no ice expert and I'm the sharpest spoon in the shed but I'm adamant that melting ice that's already in water won't change the level of the water. I'm pretty sure I'm right about that. That doesn't matter any more though, as an obvious revelation has struck me that a large amount of the ice is on land, not on water so I can hold my chin high and tell people how right I am (even if I'm probably not) with the grass beneath the ice as my alibi. And if I got diagnosed with cancer, I'd be busy not giving a **** to think twice about the Amazon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrik Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Well, I guess it's pretty easy to be adamant you're right about something if you don't bother reading the thousands upon thousands of pages of documented evidence that oppose your assertion, as well as decades of scientific research. Just because you don't understand the maths or physics doesn't mean they're not in effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 As Thrik says. Seriously, how is something not in the water displacing said water. Any ice floating above the water will add to the sea when melted, I don't see how you don't get this. By your logic, if I stick my hand in a bucket of water, an entire Joshi's worth of water will be displaced. Seriously, ask a science teacher, or read a book, or just anything that might educate you before making such claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaTurtle Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Seaturtle, water expands when frozen so it would take up less space when melted, but you may be thinking of surface area. *facepalm* Of course it does. How could I forget that? I swear I'm getting more stupid as I get older. I was actually quite clever when I was at school. Honestly, I was. Anyway, carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fealiks Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 As Thrik says. Seriously, how is something not in the water displacing said water. Any ice floating above the water will add to the sea when melted, I don't see how you don't get this. By your logic, if I stick my hand in a bucket of water, an entire Joshi's worth of water will be displaced. Seriously, ask a science teacher, or read a book, or just anything that might educate you before making such claims. Actually I spoke to my science teacher about it ages ago and heard a lengthily interview on the radio about this but since I can't really back myself up and can't remember enough to be articulate about this I think I'll just go back to being comfortably stupid.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 The bit of snow particles that rest ON TOP of the ice in the poles is enough to cover much of the green land, if melted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fealiks Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Really? Where did you hear that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 S' people like you Fealiks that keep me in a job, teaching those too lazy to look past the end of their garden path. ****in hell man, theres alot of good to come from curing people from whatever ails them ie: cancer. But if those people with cancer havent got anything to live on ie: the earth cos we destroyed it using all our spare time to cure the population that is pulling the provebial rug from underneath it's own feet, then whats the point. Heres a speculation for ya: If world poverty was ended would the planet cope? Probably not, if death and disease were decreased would our planet survive? Death is a part of the life cycle and we spend all our time attempting to prevent it. You ain't gonna die, you just won't be human anymore (no offence to hinduism/buddhism etc). BUT when the way we live detroys the very thing that gave us life (b4 you say it fealiks im not talking about your parents) then we've got to do some drastic re-modelling of society which could start with small things like not eating at unsustainable franchises and more importantly "Learn and attempt to understand what keeps you alive and how it should be treated" and please i know your young but it's bloody important. PS: Thanks for knowing your stuff guys theres alot of people out thee that work bloody hard for ridiculously low pay and at the sacrifice of the lifestyle they'd like just to help the population realise whats going on out there. Its real encouraging to know some peeps are finding it out on their own. Means alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fealiks Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 S' people like you Fealiks that keep me in a job, teaching those too lazy to look past the end of their garden path. We wouldn't be having this argument if I hadn't looked past the end of my garden path. BUT when the way we live detroys the very thing that gave us life (b4 you say it fealiks im not talking about your parents) I wasn't actually going to say anything, but yeah now you've brought it up, the Earth didn't give me life. then we've got to do some drastic re-modelling of society which could start with small things like not eating at unsustainable franchises How is that going to help anything? Edit: Sorry if I came off in this post (and all of my others) like an arsehole, I don't mean to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I wasn't actually going to say anything, but yeah now you've brought it up, the Earth didn't give me life. Yes it did, were it not for us living off the of the Earth, from the food it gives us to the shelter, we wouldn't be here today. The earth certainly did give us life, and if we continue down the path were going, it'll take it away too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fealiks Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Well okay, "the Earth" is really vague but I get what you're saying. And if we're continuing down the path we're going, WE will take it away not the Earth (I know the chances of you seriously blaming it on the Earth are really slim... just thought I'd throw it out there...). And while we're on the subject of saving the planet, let's talk about recycling. Everyone thinks that recycling is the best thing since fried bread, but I think I've found evidence that recycling is actually a load of crap and isn't helping anything. Daniel K. Benjamin is an author who exposes the 8 myths of recycling. There is a PDF available here: http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf Here are the 8 essential myths he exposes: 1. “Our garbage will bury us” 2. “Our garbage will poison us” 3. “Packaging is our problem” 4. “We must achieve trash independence” 5. “We squander irreplacable resources when we don’t recycle” 6. “Recycling always protects the environment” 7. “Recycling saves resources” 8. “Without forced recycling mandates, there wouldn’t be recycling” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Ice is exactly the same, if there is ice above the water level, it is not displacing any of the water it is floating in, and thus when it melts, it all melts, so that above the water is adding to the water it is floating in. Correct observation but wrong conclusion. You are assuming that the volume of ice remains constant when it melts but it does not. 1. The volume of water displaced by ice is the volume of the ice that is submerged in the water. 2. Gravity acts on the ice and the displaced water identically. Llike a balance scale, the force of the ice pushing down into the water is balanced by the force of the water pushing up due to water being displaced. Because gravitational acceleration is constant, equal forces mean equal mass. Therefore the mass of the ice is equal to the mass of the water displaced. 3. Ice has a specific gravity of about 0.92. That means that 100cc of ice weighs the same as 92cc of water (92g) and thus 100cc of ice will displace 92cc of water and the other 8cc will be floating above the surface. 4. When the ice melts into water its mass stays the same as before (92g) but now it only takes up 92cc. The volume of the melted ice is the same as the volume of water displaced by the solid ice. Conclusion: No change in displacement of water due to melting ice. Ask a science teacher... http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358/Fluid-Mechanics-1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Resources? Now he states that curbside recycling uses a large amount of capital, so mainly his twisted conclusions state that curbside collection is bad due to the cost, not what he started to say and thats about conserving resources. Gotta admit i do agree with the transportation of recyclables being a problem. we can conclude "that there is plenty of fossil fuel available for the foreseeable future." - He can ram this fact up his arse! "Many life forms exist today in the quantities they do only because humans use them, and thus have taken care to make sure they are abundant." Yeah it's called reforestation and it's a BAD thing mostly due to the increase of undesirable species that are already abundant that then overun and decimate the weaker species. PLUS the growth of extra forests isn't great because the species that use them are obviously adaptable at living in a human disturbed environment. IE: Deer, foxes etc. So what happens to the dwellers that needed the moss growth or foliage that was in the forest and takes decades to regrow. They only reforest with undesirable tree species upsetting natures balance. Whereas before there may have been a great ancient woodland, there'll now be and forever a well maintained, heavily used neat and tidy pine forest which is no bloody use to any of the species there beforehand. Also increasing the number of scavangers, a good example is the battle of red and grey squirrels. "Recycling is a long-practiced, productive, indeed essential, element of the market system." - He's not against recycling as stated. So i'm afraid it does not quote that "recycling is a load of crap". He just reckons its commercial and essential for making money. So if recyclings so bad prove me why recycling one glass jar saving enough energy to power a TV for and hour is a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Correct observation but wrong conclusion. You are assuming that the volume of ice remains constant when it melts but it does not. 1. The volume of water displaced by ice is the volume of the ice that is submerged in the water. 2. Gravity acts on the ice and the displaced water identically. Llike a balance scale, the force of the ice pushing down into the water is balanced by the force of the water pushing up due to water being displaced. Because gravitational acceleration is constant, equal forces mean equal mass. Therefore the mass of the ice is equal to the mass of the water displaced. 3. Ice has a specific gravity of about 0.92. That means that 100cc of ice weighs the same as 92cc of water (92g) and thus 100cc of ice will displace 92cc of water and the other 8cc will be floating above the surface. 4. When the ice melts into water its mass stays the same as before (92g) but now it only takes up 92cc. The volume of the melted ice is the same as the volume of water displaced by the solid ice. Conclusion: No change in displacement of water due to melting ice. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358/Fluid-Mechanics-1.htm Fair enough, I was still partially right, but not knowing enough about physics, not right enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.