Melting ice could ... fuck shit?

[Rabbit]

This is why the ice does not flow ....

Why doesn't it flow when the cold water goes under
hotter water? It’s crazy, yet it’s colder
than liquid water.

[recyclinage]

very cold salt water = ice islets

I would rather worry about how we want to deny the fact that when we press on the ice cube from the pastaga

and your pastaga at 20 ° c will have even more mass

your hubcaps are slamming cristophe

take back the polo shirt, ... lol

[recyclinage]

This is why the ice does not flow ....

Why doesn't it flow when the cold water goes under
hotter water? It’s crazy, yet it’s colder
than liquid water.

thank you for your eluction my dear watson

simple right?

please try again they don't understand

thx

[Alain G]

recyclinage


Put water in a glass bottle until the stopper, close the tight seal and place it in the freezer, you will see that the ice takes more space than water, your bottle will burst.

So if the ice has more volume than the water it will float.

It will float to replace the volume equivalent to water, if you push down you raise the water level, if you let melt the volume taken up by the ice in the water will be identical but the ice will decrease without the volume in the container changes.

Thank you for my patience in trying to make you understand, while the other day when you were in another state you insulted me strongly.

But reassure you I am not shocked, but I would still have appreciated that you apologized to the members that you disturbed a little.

[Rabbit]

thank you for your eluction my dear watson

simple right?

please try again they don't understand

thx

I wrote that for laughs, I perfectly what it is. Read what I write
Alain G. He explains it very well.

[Obamot]

The increase in water level is not so much due to the melting of the polar ice caps. It has been brilliantly described above that the level would remain stable.

Rather, the increase is due to the expansion of the water. Between 0 ° C and + 4 ° C, water tends to contract and its mass volume decreases (which corresponds to a coefficient of thermal expansion negative).

Above 4 ° C, water will expand, with a thermal expansion coefficient positive explanation here:
http://planet-terre.ens-lyon.fr/planetterre/XML/db/planetterre/metadata/LOM-montee-mer.xml

In my humble opinion, these are only surface waters whose temperature increases and not the entire volume. It is therefore unlikely that the trend of this last century, of 15 centimeters of elevation will continue ... There will necessarily be a stabilization. Now that doesn't mean you shouldn't do everything to slow it down.

All the more so as what would be more worrying, it would be the interruption of the "conveyor belt" of the Gulf stream ... which if this happened could cause a sudden ice period, settling over less than five years according to some , and spanning more than 100 years without being sure of a return to normal afterwards ...

... and anyway by then friends ...

[recyclinage]

it doesn't explain the rise in cancer
disappearance and not renewal of plants
disappearance of biotope
disappearance of, ...

what always freaks me out

this is the story of the guy who locks himself in his garage and turns on his car engine, ...

[Obamot]

No

Le cancer: the body develops cancer because it needs it ... (discovered in a laboratory on mice by Dr C. Kousmine, winner of the University of Lausanne). During autopsies we see lots of cancer that have resolved themselves, it's part of the natural cycle of life (tumors discovered already in the Paleolithic) nothing to do with warming ... By cons lifestyle. .. You have to be vigilant with your little health.

Plant renewal: yes good nature adapts but it takes time ... It is not so true that they are currently disappearing we are a little colonized by plants coming from the south. But it is a phenomenon that has always happened.

Le biotope is an intrinsic part of nature, by definition it does not disappear po as cha

Voila. Don't freak out if not you're all going to freak us out ... and fear is not really good for fighting diseases

[recyclinage]

No

Le cancer: the body develops cancer because it needs it ...

and pollution is not a cause?

little joker, ...

[Obamot]

I haven't been told that for a long time

Bah ... you are not wrong on this point. Except that cancer is an effect that does not necessarily have a pathogenic cause at the base - it's not even really its niche. Rather, it is due to an accumulation resulting from a failure to eliminate toxins from the body. The cases of "triggering agents" on a "healthy" subject are rather rare (the cases of employees affected in industry are relatively less and less frequent with the progressive development of "prevention culture" and means of protection). It has been a long time since we heard about a Seveso-type disaster. Yet there are many sites classified as "Seveso" risk in Europe, by the thousands ...

What I mean is that our nutritional deficiencies are otherwise a greater cause of cancer than the degradation of the immediate environment (which by the way deserves, in fact, to be dealt with urgently, including soil depletion ...)

I am much more concerned with genetic manipulation of seeds or other attempts to recover the industry such as the Codex Alimentarius ... than with cancers ...

Now if you mean to say that global warming is the consequence of all these human "slippages". It's not proven and not really provable ... but very likely indeed.

Let’s wake up!