Global Warming Brain Teaser
An environmentalist states that global warming causes icebergs to melt and the land around many existing coastlines will be flooded.
Two facts that we know is that the greatest mass of an iceberg is below the water’s surface and that water expands when it freezes. Given this, why shouldn’t the water recede from existing coastlines if icebergs melt instead of flooding them?
October 3, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Exactly which “environmentalists” have stated that melting of icebergs will flood existing coastlines?
The real brain teaser is: where do you get this misinformation?
October 3, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Hi tamino
The most prominent of all examples is Al Gore’s movie which demonstrates with stunning graphics the US coastline being flooded as the ice melts.
Lord Crimson
October 3, 2007 at 6:28 pm
An iceberg melting doesn’t effect the ocean level at all. (You can experiment yourself with ice cubes in a glass)
Global warming raises oceans levels by melting ice that is on land and by thermal expansion of the water. (Warmer water takes up more volume).
October 3, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Interested readers should survey all your posts about global warming, to decide for themselves whether this was “just a brain-teaser” or was a poorly thought out attempt to imply that global warming is nonsense and its advocates fools.
I suspect it’s the latter, and your protest that it’s “just a brain-teaser” is every bit as much a crock as your suggestion that environmentalists have attributed impending sea level rise to melting icebergs.
October 3, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Hi tamino
I would have thought the title Global Warming “Brain Teaser” would have been an obvious enough clue, but nothing is ever perfect, is it?
As it happens I do believe that the global warming scare is nonsense, but I don’t believe those that consider it a possibility foolish. Those that take advantage of others in the name of global warming is a different story.
Lord Crimson
October 3, 2007 at 10:51 pm
It is not insignificant that this “brain teaser” starts with an untruth.
“An environmentalist states that global warming causes icebergs to melt and the land around many existing coastlines will be flooded.”
Is simply not the case, unless you can produce a reliable quote of an environmentalist claiming this.
October 4, 2007 at 11:55 am
You make a false assumption by saying, “It is not insignificant that this “brain teaser” starts with an untruth.” Brain-teasers come in many forms and most add misdirection, false or useless information into the mix.
Had this been offered up as fact then you would have a complaint.
October 4, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I made no assumption. That statement is simply false. It is a misrepresentation of environmentalists. Calling it a “brain teaser” does not make that statement wrong.
October 4, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Environmentalist have been making false claims about global destruction for many, many decades. I don’t need to misrepresent environmentalist as they do a wonderful job without my help.
October 4, 2007 at 6:55 pm
So why do you insist on misrepresenting them then?
October 4, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I suppose you could ask that same question to most environmentalist leaders as misrepresentation of goals is a way of life.
October 4, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Is that you refusing to retract or defend your misrepresentation?
October 4, 2007 at 8:07 pm
That would be a basic indifference to your bullying tactics and a delight in giving back a little of what you and your kind give.
October 6, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Hi, LC. Good to see you still in the fray.
I’m familiar with tamino. On level ground he can be quite reasonable and conversational about his beliefs, although it took some coaxing to get him there when I pointed out a few things about my beliefs on the global warming hoax. He did point me to some brief and interesting preliminary reading on the subject, to his credit, but it still leaves the issues begging for answers.
Joe, on the other hand, apparently is in pre-law and enjoys embarrassing himself.
Misrepresentation is at the heart of environmentalism’s theology.
One might ask Joe, if his rote beliefs have an occasional brush with thought, just exactly who and what triggered the ending of each and every Ice Age, and what forces or events caused the ice to form in the first place? Until those answers are clearly and abundantly given there is no discussion to be had, in my view.
I’ll be happy to help him start by eliminating mankind and industrialization from the mix.
What you’ll see, LC, is a lot of charts supposedly documenting rapid advances in temperatures over several previous decades, CO2 levels in ice core samples used in an attempt to extrapolate conditions from way back yonder into today’s stab at more-of-the-same cycles for tomorrow.
EcoTerror works on ecophobes.
Is the earth warming? Oh, you betcha. Is Mars warming? Yup. Jupiter? Uh-huh. Will this freeze-thaw cycle continue happening into whatever “eternity” there may be? I’d have to say so.
It’s humbling to see the influence we have on it all, isn’t it?
When it serves their purpose, environmentalists would have us believe that the entire and unbelievablly intimate universe is plain vanilla. It’s not.
It has nuts and cherries and sprinkles and anchovies and brussels sprouts beyond our remotest imaginings. It has radiation belts, untold balls of sustained fusion (stars), fascinating comets, and all kinds of nebulae and other jaw-dropping things.
It even has black holes, the gravitational fields of which are so strong that not even light can escape. So the speed of light not only is inconstant, light can be slowed, stopped, and even made to go backward. Amazing stuff.
So, who’s to say our solar system doesn’t periodically pass through or just graze some spectacular cosmic force that alters temperatures or otherwise affects changes on our climate?
And what about that obnoxious, nuisance light that rises in the east early each day? Doesn’t it also give rise to some folks for another 12 hours of global “warming?” And an additional 24 hours (for some) of stuporific Chicken Little paranoia?
Shouldn’t we just have squadrons of Air Force fighters lurk in the east to shoot it down?
Yes, the sun. Our great cosmic heater, that medium-sized, violent, only moderately predictable ball of fusion. How ’bout that old booger, anyway?
Good to see you again, amigo.
ara
October 6, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Hi ara
It never ends, does it? The global warming hit dogs are always looking for a reason to attack. To date, I don’t believe I have ever ran across one with a sense of humor.
Lord Crimson
October 6, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Yep. Keeps things spicy, no doubt about it. There are many who crave to be led by a hook through the nose and who will not do their own homework no matter what the cost. And there are those who will balk at such a life, again no matter what the cost.
I would place the two of us, and nearly all of your commenters, in the latter category. Truth will prevail.
A feature film due for release in February 2008. It deals with the untouchable “scientific” mind and its legendary respect for thought.
There are trailers, a movie blog, and several fun alleyways into the issue of, shall we call it, the “rigidly open-minded” at http://www.expelledthemovie.com. An excellent supporting article by WND contributor Bob Unruh may be read at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57974, as well.
Perhaps if you presented your riddle in the cadence of a limerick …
=0 )
ara
October 8, 2007 at 1:37 am
A limerick, not a bad idea…
Thanks
LC
October 8, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Pick a name out of the much bowed to IPCC report. There HAS to be at least one environmentalist in it that has “warned” about the coastal flooding. Criticizing the “Teaser” is weak. The truth is many in the GW/CC camp rely on short attention spans to allow them to keep up misinformation and fear campaigns.
October 8, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Hi in2thefray
With so much money and political influence floating around it’s hard to know who to trust as far as reliable information.
You nailed it when you say the people have “short attention spans.” Otherwise after a half century of failed promises of global destruction more people would recognize the game.
Lord Crimson
October 10, 2007 at 1:42 am
LC, good point I have thought about this myself. The law of displacement supports your concern here. The only factor I can think of that would contradict this is the fact that molecules contract as the temperature lowers. Presumably the temperature of the Ice is lower than the temperature of the water around it (or the water would be Ice). Now if the temperature of the Ice rises causeing the water to melt the volume could theoretically expand, but I doubt that that temerature coefficient and its relative volume differential would come anywhere near causing the oceans to rise to the degree the left claim. B-T-W……..did you hear that algore is the leading candidate for this years Nobel Peace Prize for “inconvenient truth.” They will have to make an exception to give the award to this type of “work” but you know that the Nobel foundation is a bunch of liberal wacos, so that shouldn’t impose much of a hurdle……….steve
October 10, 2007 at 2:09 am
Tamino: Here is a link where they claim that sea level rising is due at least in part to Ice Cap melt.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm ……..steve
October 10, 2007 at 11:18 am
Hi Steve
If Jimmy Carter, the worst President the US has ever had to endure (and that’s saying a lot) can win, then it would be no surprise, in fact expected that the hypocrite algore walks away with the now joke of a prize.
Lord Crimson
October 11, 2007 at 12:27 am
I think we all see faces and things in clouds and rocks and such natural wonders. I know I do.
That said, LC, have you noticed the morose face on your iceberg above?
Use the vertical light/dark shadow as a line of demarcation. To (your) right of that you will see a shadowed eye with a rather ghoulish bag of weariness under it.
To the left is another eye, upturned in sorrow at the bridge, a somewhat stressed forehead above both and a sunlit forelock over that. Something of a Kerryesque nose divides them and, if you’re careful, you’ll see the subtle suggestion of a mouth downturned at the corners beneath it all.
This is one tired old ‘berg. Oh, the things it would probably like to say could it speak.
ara
October 11, 2007 at 11:42 am
Hi ara
So that’s where the Wicked Witch of the West ended up. I turned up my speakers and could hear a faint voice say, “I’m melting, I’m melting… what a world…”
That’s when it occurred to me that the “green” meanie was the original global warming environmentalist.
Lord Crimson
October 11, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Hi LC,
Sense there seems to be a “consensus” on the ice berg question, can we consider this settled science?
Oh, and there’s no valid proof that the Earth is warming.
the Grit
October 11, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Hi Grit
Who would have thought there would be this much interest in an iceberg?
I just walked outside and can officially report that global warming is no where to be found. Fall is here.
Lord Crimson
October 12, 2007 at 12:43 am
Mars is heating up as well.
Martian Suv’s Cause Climate Change
What do Mars and Earth have in common?
The Sun.
Global warming is just part of the solar activity cycle. Let’s all breath a sigh of relief that we’re not living in an ice Age.
October 12, 2007 at 11:19 am
Hi kevin
Nice tongue-in-cheek article.
Thanks
Lord Crimson
October 13, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Hi, LC.
I am totally lovin’ this. Great thread.
I took some liberties with an earlier post I made here, revised and expanded it, threw it on my site and linked to this thread.
It may draw a larger group and expand on this.
Since that’s something like inviting the whole town to a limited party I apologize but hope any influx will work for you. I think it’s likely to be minimal, but who knows …
In the name of settled science everywhere, I send my warmest regards,
ara