hope it will not be like the day of Noah

NickD:

And when it breaks off what then happens? Does it still remain as ice? NO. It's a practical stuff u can do at home to have a better understanding.

Lol. Calm down. The issue of the ice melting is another case entirely.
In that case, the molecules in ice are actually less compact than that of liquid water. So if the ice should melt, it will take up less space.

The implication of this is that, melting of ice caps may not necessarily increase the water level.

You can try it yourself. Put a piece of ice into a cup, then fill to the brim with water. This will cause the ice to float (as we both know). Then allow the ice to melt.

oldfoolnigger:
while scientists from other part of the world are busy carrying out research and monitoring what's happening in the world, our own dear scientists are busy carrying about long long files roaming our street looking for with collar jobs.

how does this relate to the thread. Typical mediocre Nigerian. Which structure is on ground to see to research in Nigeria. Do you know how many graduates that have to leave Nigeria to go do research abroad. Think and be sure of what you come to say on public forum!

i dont really think this will cause much damage. nature recycles itself. the likely rise in ocean water due to the icebergs might just get sucked up by the sun and come down as rain. however the rains might just be torrential.

Explorers:
Despite a recent trend of disbelief toward global warming, Mother Nature has just made herself clear.

A giant, trillion-tonne iceberg hasjust broken away from Antarctic ice shelf, and it’s an alarm we should all be heeding.

The iceberg, which has an area of roughly 4 times the size of London at 5800 km2, was part of an ice sheet known as Larsen C.

Researchers at Swansea University had been watching the glacial divide for months, and using satellite imaging, they were able to determine that the iceberg ‘calved’ (broke away) from Antarctica sometime between July 10th and 12th.





http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/12/world/larsen-c-antarctica/index.html

http://www.boredpanda.com/trillion-ton-iceberg-broke-off-antarctica/

probably heading to nigeria."there was a country".

oldfoolnigger:
while scientists from other part of the world are busy carrying out research and monitoring what's happening in the world, our own dear scientists are busy carrying about long long files roaming our street looking for with collar jobs.

except me ooh! I travel round doing research oh

Electronzeez:
It's either nature ends us or we end ourselves with nukes .
Btw, I can not overrule the west for being responsible for this crack ,it could be one of their experiment .

nature needs it's inhabitants to survive. If not, there will be nothing like nature in the first instance. It might only be another evolution. How about one comes to say there was once "global cooling" that led to the formation of the ice? That's very much possible you know.

ogocology:


Nope. Its not like 'filling a bucket with water then dropping ice into it.
See, iceberg is already in the water now! Abi, did it broke off from space?
It has already displaced it weight in the water. Melting wouldn't be addition of water except, of course, of we consider the effect on glaciers which are not in the ocean already.
There is need to take global warming seriously but the exaggeration of facts by scientists can sometimes be a turn off and counterproductive.

Spot on. This makes a lot of sense.

Explorers:
Due to the rapid rising of temperatures in West Antarctica, ice shelves are becoming more fragile than ever.

Not only does this massive iceberg pose a security risk to maritime traffic, its separation could cause glaciers stabilized by Larsen C to drift into the Atlantic Ocean and melt, which could raise the global water mark by 10 centimeters.

what do you mean by "global water mark"

NickD:

And when it breaks off what then happens? Does it still remain as ice? NO. It's a practical stuff u can do at home to have a better understanding.

@DrayZee is right.
The breaking of the ice will not cause any overall increment in the volume of water and as such there won't be any increase in the water level, moreso the melting of the ice is just a change of state from the solid to liquid phase, the iceberg is floating on the ocean hence the volume of the iceberg had already added up to the volume of the ocean water. According to the law of flotation

A floating object displaces a weight of fluid equal to its own weight.

oldfoolnigger:
while scientists from other part of the world are busy carrying out research and monitoring what's happening in the world, our own dear scientists are busy carrying about long long files roaming our street looking for with collar jobs.

How much have your government set aside as research grant for our dear scientist..or do you think scientist from other part of the world use their personal money for research? Better face your government.

But its not 'new water' if it melts, is it? It's weight is already added to the ocean even in its frozen state so should it melt down, it won't necessarily increase the amount of water there is, would it?

Let's for a moment say you have water filled to half of a bucket. let's say you then drop ice into it, this would expectedly affect the water level and push it up. By now the bucket might even appears to be full. Should you then break up the ice into two and take half out of the bucket, the water level will drop to compensate for the ice that has been removed. Let's say you then melt down the ice you took into a bowl and then pour the water back into the bucket you took the ice from. What you will have is the exact same amount of water level you had before you broke up the ice. It won't add to it in anyway since you are not pouring in new water, you only melted part of the ice in the bucket. I think same thing goes for this scenario.

CzarChris:
Dude, no need for insults. Even in the scientific society, there are a lot of people who are against this global warming stuff. Do you know that if there is an oil spill over a large area of the sea the sea has the ability of cleansing itself without any human help, just that it is too far off for human timing. From the Cenozoic to the Paleohedean era do you know how many species that where wiped off? Sometimes I wonder the way you guys reason, you have a theory come with proof and let the superior argument carry the day. If global warming was a proven theory why haven't the entire scientific society backed it up? Show me a proven mathematical model proving global warming, and don't give that CFC and Ozone layer crap there is a proven model on that one. Nature is evolving and it will keep doing so Eons after we have all turned to dust.

great, it is that African believe almost anything since they have little impact in technology. It is good to think differently. To be balanced and not just go with theory without substantial proof. I think what Trump might be saying is Nature is evolving. Which has always been it's characteristics according to science caused by so many factors. Use of fossil fuel may be a cause but will not stop it and it's effects may not even be severe or perhaps could provide solutions to another of man's problem in the nearest term.

Oluwamuyeewa:



lol you're way too intelligent to be this ignorant bro
you sit in the comfort of your momma couch typing all this and say scientist who have devoted most of their lifetime to this research is wrong...come on

you can do better

research may be true but is never certain. This is nature. It's not man made. It's never certain but assumptions.

MrPresident1:
There is no such thing as 'climate change'. Global warming? Well, the green house effect is natural, and without we would all freeze in the night. Global warming is a dynamic issue, like yo-yo, up and down, it does not prove 'climate change'

The hidden and insidious meaning of 'climate change' is that God is dead; this is evil and it is the godless postulation of the children of satan.

Their agenda is to take over the whole world; to make all of you of one language and speech against God.

exactly, nature changes and adapts!

@ Explorers: Be informed that global warming is not the controversial matter if at all. The controversy is about the cause of global warming, whether from human activities or some unknown cause.

Issoraite! Let me just go and buy canoe. No time

NickD:

Most sensible talk on this thread. Without man the environment would survive without the environment man won't survive. We are gradually pushing ourself into extinction either we nuke ourself or nature eases us out gradually lol

why are you scared of going into extinction. There is little or nothing you can do about it according to the same science. Sebi, they said man evolved to what it is. Have we ever cared what caused it. Well nature changing provides that answer. So, yes, There will be a time man will evolve into something else. That thing, we do not know.

oldfoolnigger:
while scientists from other part of the world are busy carrying out research and monitoring what's happening in the world, our own dear scientists are busy carrying about long long files roaming our street looking for with collar jobs.

That thing dey pain me ehh, ask them watin u study, answer...I be engineer. You be engineer and u are carrying files upandan with long sleeve and neck tie.

This raises more awareness on the effect of climate change. We need to start being more friendly with our environment.

DrayZee:

Lol. Calm down. The issue of the ice melting is another case entirely.
In that case, the molecules in ice are actually less compact than that of liquid water. So if the ice should melt, it will take up less space.

The implication of this is that, melting of ice caps may not necessarily increase the water level.

You can try it yourself. Put a piece of ice into a cup, then fill to the brim with water. This will cause the ice to float (as we both know). Then allow the ice to melt.

U have a valid argument on that based on displacement theory or should I say upthrust in Physics. Nice perspective I actually haven't looked at it from this angle but then it means when there is a massive wave there would be more water in the sea that would cause more destruction so in the end it's still the same result of more flooding to those coastal towns that's the argument.

Lekki and vi ppl Una dey hear?

we are gradually heading for the final destruction

mecussey:


That thing dey pain me ehh, ask them watin u study, answer...I be engineer. You be engineer and u are carrying files upandan with long sleeve and neck tie.

you, wetin u dey do?

SnowJay92:


Let's assume for one moment that reducing emissions won't turn the tide, what do we stand to lose from reducing emissions? Maybe u think ozone layer depletion and the consequences on us is hoax too? What about the direct carcinogenic effects of emissions on us humans even before it gets into the atmosphere? Do you know there would still be tectonic consequences for the billions of tonnes of fossil fuels we're withdrawing from underneath the earth's surface? Is renewable energy sources not cheaper than the fossil fuels that's causing all this fuss?

we all shouting clean fuel. Some 100 yea ago, we never shouted climate change or depletion. Over the years, I can bet you the negative effects of so called "clean" energy will be found. Point is as man tries to adapt, there are certain things that will always change in his environment. It might only take time for him to find these changes. Thats what adaptation is all about... changes!

Dscientist:

@DrayZee is right.
The breaking of the ice will not cause any overall increment in the volume of water and as such there won't be any increase in the water level, moreso the melting of the ice is just a change of state from the solid to liquid phase, the iceberg is floating on the ocean hence the volume of the iceberg had already added up to the volume of the ocean water. According to the law of flotation

A floating object displaces a weight of fluid equal to its own weight.

U have a valid argument on that based on displacement
theory or should I say upthrust in Physics. Nice perspective I
actually haven't looked at it from this angle but then it
means when there is a massive wave there would be more
water in the sea that would cause more destruction so in
the end it's still the same result of more flooding to those
coastal towns that's the argument.

majekdom2:
we all shouting clean fuel. Some 100 yea ago, we never shouted climate change or depletion. Over the years, I can bet you the negative effects of so called "clean" energy will be found. Point is as man tries to adapt, there are certain things that will always change in his environment. It might only take time for him to find these changes. Thats what adaptation is all about... changes!

Let's adapt to clean energy, if any consequences comes from the use in the future mankind would still find a way to adapt and find less consequential sources, that's what this is all about, should people continue logging wood to cook because maybe in some years the effects of using solar energy would emerge? What after effects for you think would ever result from powering noiseless trains with wind energy? You can as well advice nations to keep setting up nuclear plants here and there because the effects of harnessing solar energy (none known currently) would maybe emerge in future, what kind of logic is that?

989900:
Ice melting might not mean increase in volume of water . . . Ice displaces it's own weight

well said

UyiIredi:
@ Explorers: Be informed that global warming is not the controversial matter if at all. The controversy is about the cause of global warming, whether from human activities or some unknown cause.

human activities is part of it but to say that there are no unknown causes will be a silly assumption.

majekdom2:
you, wetin u dey do?

I do what I know best and am enjoying it. Offer me bank work of 500k per month, I no go work. I personally, know what an average igboman can do in the tech industry but school and Nigeria has deceived us a whole lot. If i become a the presido today, I will scrap the current education will call university. After, secondary school, you will be attached to a company and after 5yrs, you will be given bsc according to your productivity. Instead of enriching some few pple that calls themselves lecturers who comes to class to read textbooks written by someone who died decades ago.

Ajewealth123:
O ga o.
What harm does this pose?


Modified, thanks for all that contributed.
So una mean say places like lekki,banana island,vi,ikoyi,elegushi water go just throway all of them?

Una neva chi chumtin.