Antarctica hits warmest temperature ever recorded

[toobfreak]

You're joking, right? We may be able to influence or sway climate a bit, but we can no more CONTROL climate than we can move asteroids from hitting the planet.

It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.

Well, you obviously don't understand how big the world really is (compared to us), or that there are MANY factors affecting climate beyond mere CO2. Build all the CO2 machines you want. Put one on every city block. After you figure out who is going to pay for all that, at most all you'll do is perhaps sway the climate trend slightly one way or the other ---- ---- until the Earth really decides to go the way it wants.

You should immediately contact Columbia University to explain to them how large the Earth is and how foolish their research into artificial trees to control global warming because they obviously have no idea.

columbia university artificial trees - Google Search

Right. I know people doing research in universities. They research this stuff because that is how they get their funding and justify it. And their tuitions. Who knows, someday they may have some limited success. The physics remain the same. Good luck building whole cities full of CO2 sucking boxes and entire forests of fake trees. You'll believe anything you read so long as it fits your agenda.

lol The technology is already here. These machines, which are fairly small can each collect as much CO2 as 1,000 trees; each one would be as effective as a whole forest of natural trees.

Then BY YOUR OWN FIGURES, all we'd need is to create FOUR BILLION of these machines to equal the CO2 capability of the existing trees already on the planet which cannot keep up with the task. How much would it cost to make 4 billion of these machines? Where would you put them all? Will merely doubling the earths tree absorbing capacity be enough to counter ALL of the effects contributing to climate change? Or just the minor one contributed by CO2?

My guess is that you haven't even yet ASKED these questions much less gotten the answers.

 

[the other mike]

The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined

U.S. military produces more greenhouse gases than up to 140 countries

U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter

Top 5 most polluting countries
CO2 emissions by country | Statista

We can do this all day.

Just how much are you willing to give up? You haven't stated that, yet.
How much of your wallet are you willing to give away?
I've asked this several times over the last few years, and I really only get deflections in return.
Nobody really doesn't want to answer that.

Yes everyone knows China is the biggest polluter among nations ,with the biggest population the most coal plants, and so on.

And even though they're forced to build new coal-fired plants right now, they already have plans to phase most of the older ones out in 30 years, and to be energy self-sufficient within 40 to 50 years,.

On the other hand we have no long-term goals. Zero.

Well, says you, and I'm sure we all can believe what China says, huh?
They've done practically nothing towards cleaning up the air, and we have made some major advances over the last 20 years.
And, you call that nothing? Really?
Yet....we are the bad guys.
How much of our economy are you willing to let go of?

Just a side note, you aren't answering the questions that I've asked. Don't worry...I'm used to
the "greenies" not answering.

Really ? Who was it that provided the links you asked for ?

Looks to me like you're the one midirecting the facts here.

I asked several questions, you took the low hanging fruit and not the
other questions. Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer how much of your
wallet are you willing to give up? How much of your lifestyle are you willing to give up?

And yes, I did show you that China was the biggest polluter in the world.

How much you want to bet, if I go back to your posts from 11 years ago I won't find the exact same talking points .? ( Sorry ..."questions" )

 

[Meister]

Top 5 most polluting countries
CO2 emissions by country | Statista

We can do this all day.

Just how much are you willing to give up? You haven't stated that, yet.
How much of your wallet are you willing to give away?
I've asked this several times over the last few years, and I really only get deflections in return.
Nobody really doesn't want to answer that.

Yes everyone knows China is the biggest polluter among nations ,with the biggest population the most coal plants, and so on.

And even though they're forced to build new coal-fired plants right now, they already have plans to phase most of the older ones out in 30 years, and to be energy self-sufficient within 40 to 50 years,.

On the other hand we have no long-term goals. Zero.

Well, says you, and I'm sure we all can believe what China says, huh?
They've done practically nothing towards cleaning up the air, and we have made some major advances over the last 20 years.
And, you call that nothing? Really?
Yet....we are the bad guys.
How much of our economy are you willing to let go of?

Just a side note, you aren't answering the questions that I've asked. Don't worry...I'm used to
the "greenies" not answering.

Really ? Who was it that provided the links you asked for ?

Looks to me like you're the one midirecting the facts here.

I asked several questions, you took the low hanging fruit and not the
other questions. Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer how much of your
wallet are you willing to give up? How much of your lifestyle are you willing to give up?

And yes, I did show you that China was the biggest polluter in the world.

How much you want to bet, if I go back to your posts from 11 years ago I won't find the exact same talking points .? ( Sorry ..."questions" )

Deflection...I get it....I'm used to it as a matter of fact.

 

[the other mike]

Deflection...I get it....I'm used to it as a matter of fact.

More like reflection...
How China's giant solar farms are transforming world energy
Get it ?

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's no joke. If you read the article, it's clear that technology already exists to draw enough CO2 from the air to not only stop global warming but to reverse it if a sufficient number of these machines are placed around the world. Similar machines have been developed to draw off the more densely packed CO2 molecules from water. By controlling the amount of CO2 in the air and water, we can control climate change. It's not even a difficult concept to understand, so why do we hear nothing about it from those who claim to be concerned about climate change? Obviously, because this has become a political and ideological issue and climate changes fanatics have no use for any solution that is politically and ideologically neutral.

Well, you obviously don't understand how big the world really is (compared to us), or that there are MANY factors affecting climate beyond mere CO2. Build all the CO2 machines you want. Put one on every city block. After you figure out who is going to pay for all that, at most all you'll do is perhaps sway the climate trend slightly one way or the other ---- ---- until the Earth really decides to go the way it wants.

You should immediately contact Columbia University to explain to them how large the Earth is and how foolish their research into artificial trees to control global warming because they obviously have no idea.

columbia university artificial trees - Google Search

Right. I know people doing research in universities. They research this stuff because that is how they get their funding and justify it. And their tuitions. Who knows, someday they may have some limited success. The physics remain the same. Good luck building whole cities full of CO2 sucking boxes and entire forests of fake trees. You'll believe anything you read so long as it fits your agenda.

lol The technology is already here. These machines, which are fairly small can each collect as much CO2 as 1,000 trees; each one would be as effective as a whole forest of natural trees.

Then BY YOUR OWN FIGURES, all we'd need is to create FOUR BILLION of these machines to equal the CO2 capability of the existing trees already on the planet which cannot keep up with the task. How much would it cost to make 4 billion of these machines? Where would you put them all? Will merely doubling the earths tree absorbing capacity be enough to counter ALL of the effects contributing to climate change? Or just the minor one contributed by CO2?

My guess is that you haven't even yet ASKED these questions much less gotten the answers.

I really don't understand why you are so hostile to the idea of using science to control global warming. Civilizations are built by controlling nature.

It would only be necessary to build and distribute enough of these machines to supplement the ability of natural vegetation to withdraw enough CO2 from the atmosphere to prevent the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere from increasing to halt global warming. Of course building more machines than this would lower the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere having a cooling effect on the Earth.

It is difficult to estimate what it would cost; the cost would be high but much, much less than trying to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions. Large scale production would, of course, reduce unit costs, and since the machines are currently expected to have a 15 year life span before they would have to be rebuilt or replaced, the production facilities would continue to provide new jobs, salaries and taxes, which would all have to be considered in estimating the net cost of the machines. Some installations are already in use around the world, and they reduce costs by selling the CO2 they capture. One facility is going up in Huntsville Al. next to a soda factory and it will sell its CO2 to the soda factory to carbonate its sodas. Another is in use in Iceland and it sells its CO2 to greenhouse farmers, and this has increased the farm's output by 20%.

While it may be true that we are still coming out of the last ice age, the pace of warming is much too quick to ascribe it to geologic changes and correlates too closely to increases in the use of fossil fuels and the reductions of rain forests to deny that at least most of it is from human activities. The principal contributions to global warming from human activity come from the release of CO2 and methane, so controlling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will at least have a major effect on global warming and by reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we may be able to compensate for other factors we cannot yet control.

 

[toobfreak]

Well, you obviously don't understand how big the world really is (compared to us), or that there are MANY factors affecting climate beyond mere CO2. Build all the CO2 machines you want. Put one on every city block. After you figure out who is going to pay for all that, at most all you'll do is perhaps sway the climate trend slightly one way or the other ---- ---- until the Earth really decides to go the way it wants.

You should immediately contact Columbia University to explain to them how large the Earth is and how foolish their research into artificial trees to control global warming because they obviously have no idea.

columbia university artificial trees - Google Search

Right. I know people doing research in universities. They research this stuff because that is how they get their funding and justify it. And their tuitions. Who knows, someday they may have some limited success. The physics remain the same. Good luck building whole cities full of CO2 sucking boxes and entire forests of fake trees. You'll believe anything you read so long as it fits your agenda.

lol The technology is already here. These machines, which are fairly small can each collect as much CO2 as 1,000 trees; each one would be as effective as a whole forest of natural trees.

Then BY YOUR OWN FIGURES, all we'd need is to create FOUR BILLION of these machines to equal the CO2 capability of the existing trees already on the planet which cannot keep up with the task. How much would it cost to make 4 billion of these machines? Where would you put them all? Will merely doubling the earths tree absorbing capacity be enough to counter ALL of the effects contributing to climate change? Or just the minor one contributed by CO2?

My guess is that you haven't even yet ASKED these questions much less gotten the answers.

I really don't understand why you are so hostile to the idea of using science to control global warming. Civilizations are built by controlling nature.

It would only be necessary to build and distribute enough of these machines to supplement the ability of natural vegetation to withdraw enough CO2 from the atmosphere to prevent the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere from increasing to halt global warming. Of course building more machines than this would lower the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere having a cooling effect on the Earth.

It is difficult to estimate what it would cost; the cost would be high but much, much less than trying to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions. Large scale production would, of course, reduce unit costs, and since the machines are currently expected to have a 15 year life span before they would have to be rebuilt or replaced, the production facilities would continue to provide new jobs, salaries and taxes, which would all have to be considered in estimating the net cost of the machines. Some installations are already in use around the world, and they reduce costs by selling the CO2 they capture. One facility is going up in Huntsville Al. next to a soda factory and it will sell its CO2 to the soda factory to carbonate its sodas. Another is in use in Iceland and it sells its CO2 to greenhouse farmers, and this has increased the farm's output by 20%.

While it may be true that we are still coming out of the last ice age, the pace of warming is much too quick to ascribe it to geologic changes and correlates too closely to increases in the use of fossil fuels and the reductions of rain forests to deny that at least most of it is from human activities. The principal contributions to global warming from human activity come from the release of CO2 and methane, so controlling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will at least have a major effect on global warming and by reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we may be able to compensate for other factors we cannot yet control.

Typical deflecting and strawman arguments. If you knew anything about science or business, you'd know it isn't being "hostile" to do a feasibility study and cost analysis before leaping head first into trying to change the climate of the planet and CONTROL it.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

It would only be necessary to build and distribute enough of these machines to supplement the ability of natural vegetation to withdraw enough CO2 from the atmosphere to prevent the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere from increasing to halt global warming. Of course building more machines than this would lower the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere having a cooling effect on the Earth

If you believe in this nonsense, why do you want machines to do what plants do naturally? Why do you hate the plant kingdom?

 

[toomuchtime_]

It would only be necessary to build and distribute enough of these machines to supplement the ability of natural vegetation to withdraw enough CO2 from the atmosphere to prevent the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere from increasing to halt global warming. Of course building more machines than this would lower the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere having a cooling effect on the Earth

If you believe in this nonsense, why do you want machines to do what plants do naturally? Why do you hate the plant kingdom?

You should immediately contact Columbia University to explain to them how large the Earth is and how foolish their research into artificial trees to control global warming because they obviously have no idea.

columbia university artificial trees - Google Search

Right. I know people doing research in universities. They research this stuff because that is how they get their funding and justify it. And their tuitions. Who knows, someday they may have some limited success. The physics remain the same. Good luck building whole cities full of CO2 sucking boxes and entire forests of fake trees. You'll believe anything you read so long as it fits your agenda.

lol The technology is already here. These machines, which are fairly small can each collect as much CO2 as 1,000 trees; each one would be as effective as a whole forest of natural trees.

Then BY YOUR OWN FIGURES, all we'd need is to create FOUR BILLION of these machines to equal the CO2 capability of the existing trees already on the planet which cannot keep up with the task. How much would it cost to make 4 billion of these machines? Where would you put them all? Will merely doubling the earths tree absorbing capacity be enough to counter ALL of the effects contributing to climate change? Or just the minor one contributed by CO2?

My guess is that you haven't even yet ASKED these questions much less gotten the answers.

I really don't understand why you are so hostile to the idea of using science to control global warming. Civilizations are built by controlling nature.

It would only be necessary to build and distribute enough of these machines to supplement the ability of natural vegetation to withdraw enough CO2 from the atmosphere to prevent the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere from increasing to halt global warming. Of course building more machines than this would lower the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere having a cooling effect on the Earth.

It is difficult to estimate what it would cost; the cost would be high but much, much less than trying to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions. Large scale production would, of course, reduce unit costs, and since the machines are currently expected to have a 15 year life span before they would have to be rebuilt or replaced, the production facilities would continue to provide new jobs, salaries and taxes, which would all have to be considered in estimating the net cost of the machines. Some installations are already in use around the world, and they reduce costs by selling the CO2 they capture. One facility is going up in Huntsville Al. next to a soda factory and it will sell its CO2 to the soda factory to carbonate its sodas. Another is in use in Iceland and it sells its CO2 to greenhouse farmers, and this has increased the farm's output by 20%.

While it may be true that we are still coming out of the last ice age, the pace of warming is much too quick to ascribe it to geologic changes and correlates too closely to increases in the use of fossil fuels and the reductions of rain forests to deny that at least most of it is from human activities. The principal contributions to global warming from human activity come from the release of CO2 and methane, so controlling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will at least have a major effect on global warming and by reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we may be able to compensate for other factors we cannot yet control.

View attachment 305792


Typical deflecting and strawman arguments. If you knew anything about science or business, you'd know it isn't being "hostile" to do a feasibility study and cost analysis before leaping head first into trying to change the climate of the planet and CONTROL it.

It is obvious that you are hostile to this means of of controlling climate change and I can only conclude it is for ideological reasons.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It would only be necessary to build and distribute enough of these machines to supplement the ability of natural vegetation to withdraw enough CO2 from the atmosphere to prevent the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere from increasing to halt global warming. Of course building more machines than this would lower the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere having a cooling effect on the Earth

If you believe in this nonsense, why do you want machines to do what plants do naturally? Why do you hate the plant kingdom?

lol The plant kingdom? Who is the king of the plants.

 

[Meister]

Deflection...I get it....I'm used to it as a matter of fact.

More like reflection...
How China's giant solar farms are transforming world energy
Get it ?

YOU are not going to answer the questions, previously put to you. Again....you're deflecting

From your source:

These projects have cost many millions of dollars to build – but have they been worth it? And will enough of these sprawling farms ever be constructed to meet its green energy targets?
Many of the country’s solar panels are therefore located as far as can be from the large towns and cities that need them. The result of this is a staggeringly low capacity factor – the percentage of electricity actually taken from any given resource.
The cut in public finance has come about because the state-run renewable energy fund is in debt to the tune of more than $15bn
The panels last just 30 years or so, after which they must be broken up. It is hard to recycle them because they contain harmful chemicals like sulphuric acid. China is expected to experience a sudden boom in solar panel waste from around 2040 onwards and there is currently no clear plan for what to do with all that material.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Who gives a shit. Let the thread die

 

[the other mike]

Deflection...I get it....I'm used to it as a matter of fact.

More like reflection...
How China's giant solar farms are transforming world energy
Get it ?

YOU are not going to answer the questions, previously put to you. Again....you're deflecting

From your source:

These projects have cost many millions of dollars to build – but have they been worth it? And will enough of these sprawling farms ever be constructed to meet its green energy targets?
Many of the country’s solar panels are therefore located as far as can be from the large towns and cities that need them. The result of this is a staggeringly low capacity factor – the percentage of electricity actually taken from any given resource.
The cut in public finance has come about because the state-run renewable energy fund is in debt to the tune of more than $15bn
The panels last just 30 years or so, after which they must be broken up. It is hard to recycle them because they contain harmful chemicals like sulphuric acid. China is expected to experience a sudden boom in solar panel waste from around 2040 onwards and there is currently no clear plan for what to do with all that material.

I guess you ran out of Solyndra talking points.

 

[Meister]

Deflection...I get it....I'm used to it as a matter of fact.

More like reflection...
How China's giant solar farms are transforming world energy
Get it ?

YOU are not going to answer the questions, previously put to you. Again....you're deflecting

From your source:

These projects have cost many millions of dollars to build – but have they been worth it? And will enough of these sprawling farms ever be constructed to meet its green energy targets?
Many of the country’s solar panels are therefore located as far as can be from the large towns and cities that need them. The result of this is a staggeringly low capacity factor – the percentage of electricity actually taken from any given resource.
The cut in public finance has come about because the state-run renewable energy fund is in debt to the tune of more than $15bn
The panels last just 30 years or so, after which they must be broken up. It is hard to recycle them because they contain harmful chemicals like sulphuric acid. China is expected to experience a sudden boom in solar panel waste from around 2040 onwards and there is currently no clear plan for what to do with all that material.

I guess you ran out of Solyndra talking points.

WTF??????????????? That was your source, Angie. You are the one who posted it.
Don't you read what you post?
Isn't it time to go do your homework for school tomorrow?
Bless your heart, child

 

[Meister]

Who gives a shit. Let the thread die

Agreed

 

[the other mike]

Deflection...I get it....I'm used to it as a matter of fact.

More like reflection...
How China's giant solar farms are transforming world energy
Get it ?

YOU are not going to answer the questions, previously put to you. Again....you're deflecting

From your source:

These projects have cost many millions of dollars to build – but have they been worth it? And will enough of these sprawling farms ever be constructed to meet its green energy targets?
Many of the country’s solar panels are therefore located as far as can be from the large towns and cities that need them. The result of this is a staggeringly low capacity factor – the percentage of electricity actually taken from any given resource.
The cut in public finance has come about because the state-run renewable energy fund is in debt to the tune of more than $15bn
The panels last just 30 years or so, after which they must be broken up. It is hard to recycle them because they contain harmful chemicals like sulphuric acid. China is expected to experience a sudden boom in solar panel waste from around 2040 onwards and there is currently no clear plan for what to do with all that material.

I guess you ran out of Solyndra talking points.

WTF??????????????? That was your source, Angie. You are the one who posted it.
Don't you read what you post?
Isn't it time to go do your homework for school tomorrow?
Bless your heart, child

Listen monkey-brain troll...... Btw ....how did you get to be a moderator here anyway?

 

[the other mike]

Who gives a shit. Let the thread die

Agreed

Good now run along losers.

 

[Godboy]

View attachment 305395 There's no denying it now.

The Antarctic Peninsula recorded a high of 65 degrees this week, the hottest temperature ever recorded there.

The reading was taken Thursday at Esperanza Base along Antarctica's Trinity Peninsula.

Antarctica hits warmest temperature ever recorded

Cool. I've sold off all my coastal property up here and look forward to a nice beachfront home overlooking the Tierra del Fuego under the stars of the Magellanic Clouds.

I'm looking forward to scuba diving where Miami used to be.

I think Florida will be safe. Just because the polar ice caps melt, doesnt mean its going to raise the ocean levels that much, if at all.

Here is a fun science experiment. Get a glass, put some ice in it, then fill water to the very top of the glass. Youll notice that the ice is actually sticking up above the water line. When that ice melts, do you think the cup will overflow and spill water down the side? The answer is NO because, 90% of ice is below the water line, leaving 10% above. Why is that? Because there is oxygen trapped in the ice, which increases its mass. When the ice melts, the excess oxygen trapped in the ice no longer takes up space and it condenses down to pure water, which levels out exactly to the waterline.

Dude, that is so wrong on many counts! You don't seem to have any understanding of basic science.

1. Florida is among the highest at risk! Not only is much of the state just barely above sea level, but the state is actually just saturated sandstone over a system of underground caverns, caves and rivers, actually, a sort of underground drain for the continent, almost like a second Mississippi River. The entire state is a sponge of water-filled porosities draining out into the Gulf.
2. When you fill a glass with water and ice, it does not matter that some of the ice stands above. It's weight is still there displacing the same amount of water in the glass to a certain level as after once it is melted. The only variable is the surface tension of the water which aids in the holding back of the water.
3. Oxygen is a gas. A gas has negligible mass in these quantities. There is AIR trapped in the water (usually, but not necessarily), which affects its volume but not its mass, unless you want to consider that an air-filled cube of ice by volume will be slightly lighter than one not. But the total amount of water mass remains the same.

Its is not surface tension that holds the water in place. The waterline doesnt move. It isnt raised above the top of the glass at all.

By the way, this isnt some theory. I heard Neil Degrass Tyson talk about it, so i tested it myself and he was absolutely right.

 

[toobfreak]

View attachment 305395 There's no denying it now.

The Antarctic Peninsula recorded a high of 65 degrees this week, the hottest temperature ever recorded there.

The reading was taken Thursday at Esperanza Base along Antarctica's Trinity Peninsula.

Antarctica hits warmest temperature ever recorded

Cool. I've sold off all my coastal property up here and look forward to a nice beachfront home overlooking the Tierra del Fuego under the stars of the Magellanic Clouds.

I'm looking forward to scuba diving where Miami used to be.

I think Florida will be safe. Just because the polar ice caps melt, doesnt mean its going to raise the ocean levels that much, if at all.

Here is a fun science experiment. Get a glass, put some ice in it, then fill water to the very top of the glass. Youll notice that the ice is actually sticking up above the water line. When that ice melts, do you think the cup will overflow and spill water down the side? The answer is NO because, 90% of ice is below the water line, leaving 10% above. Why is that? Because there is oxygen trapped in the ice, which increases its mass. When the ice melts, the excess oxygen trapped in the ice no longer takes up space and it condenses down to pure water, which levels out exactly to the waterline.

Dude, that is so wrong on many counts! You don't seem to have any understanding of basic science.

1. Florida is among the highest at risk! Not only is much of the state just barely above sea level, but the state is actually just saturated sandstone over a system of underground caverns, caves and rivers, actually, a sort of underground drain for the continent, almost like a second Mississippi River. The entire state is a sponge of water-filled porosities draining out into the Gulf.
2. When you fill a glass with water and ice, it does not matter that some of the ice stands above. It's weight is still there displacing the same amount of water in the glass to a certain level as after once it is melted. The only variable is the surface tension of the water which aids in the holding back of the water.
3. Oxygen is a gas. A gas has negligible mass in these quantities. There is AIR trapped in the water (usually, but not necessarily), which affects its volume but not its mass, unless you want to consider that an air-filled cube of ice by volume will be slightly lighter than one not. But the total amount of water mass remains the same.

Its is not surface tension that holds the water in place. The waterline doesnt move. It isnt raised above the top of the glass at all.

By the way, this isnt some theory. I heard Neil Degrass Tyson talk about it, so i tested it myself and he was absolutely right.

Yes and I've tried to explain to you why it works.

 

[Godboy]

Cool. I've sold off all my coastal property up here and look forward to a nice beachfront home overlooking the Tierra del Fuego under the stars of the Magellanic Clouds.

I'm looking forward to scuba diving where Miami used to be.

I think Florida will be safe. Just because the polar ice caps melt, doesnt mean its going to raise the ocean levels that much, if at all.

Here is a fun science experiment. Get a glass, put some ice in it, then fill water to the very top of the glass. Youll notice that the ice is actually sticking up above the water line. When that ice melts, do you think the cup will overflow and spill water down the side? The answer is NO because, 90% of ice is below the water line, leaving 10% above. Why is that? Because there is oxygen trapped in the ice, which increases its mass. When the ice melts, the excess oxygen trapped in the ice no longer takes up space and it condenses down to pure water, which levels out exactly to the waterline.

Dude, that is so wrong on many counts! You don't seem to have any understanding of basic science.

1. Florida is among the highest at risk! Not only is much of the state just barely above sea level, but the state is actually just saturated sandstone over a system of underground caverns, caves and rivers, actually, a sort of underground drain for the continent, almost like a second Mississippi River. The entire state is a sponge of water-filled porosities draining out into the Gulf.
2. When you fill a glass with water and ice, it does not matter that some of the ice stands above. It's weight is still there displacing the same amount of water in the glass to a certain level as after once it is melted. The only variable is the surface tension of the water which aids in the holding back of the water.
3. Oxygen is a gas. A gas has negligible mass in these quantities. There is AIR trapped in the water (usually, but not necessarily), which affects its volume but not its mass, unless you want to consider that an air-filled cube of ice by volume will be slightly lighter than one not. But the total amount of water mass remains the same.

Its is not surface tension that holds the water in place. The waterline doesnt move. It isnt raised above the top of the glass at all.

By the way, this isnt some theory. I heard Neil Degrass Tyson talk about it, so i tested it myself and he was absolutely right.

Yes and I've tried to explain to you why it works.

Yes, and you were incorrect.

 

[jc456]

so what?

Allow me to point out why your behavior is stupid.

If you really cared to know the answer, you would defer to what scientists say.

And that about sums it up.

what's the answer?