Greenland is hollow.

Who in Hell brought up thermal expansion? It is totally irelevant re: the size of the earth. With the exception of a VERY thin crust, the earth is virtually all molton rock. What happens on the surface is all that affects us, and that includes obviously, temperature.

So much good information out there; so little understanding of said information. The chasm between the US and the ROW when it comes to the understanding of physics and engineering principles is becoming painfully obvious.

Aurel said it was the main concern, take it up with him. :D

Can you remember no one claims mankind is solely responsible for natural global warming cycles? Can you remember the real hypothesis is that mankind's activities are responsible for amplifying and modifying global warming cycles with damaging results? Can you remember that most scientists, most corporate interests (including some energy companies), and most governments now accept this hypothesis as proven?

All I know is when all those ice cubes melt and run off that big rock Jim's jetta is swimming.

NPR. Yes that uberLiberal NPR had on a scientific/global warming (supposed) Expert on a few days ago.

Of his points were thermal expansion of oceans is the real problem (of rising sealevels) And, he when on about how the oceans are absorbing massive amounts of CO₂, everchanging the ph for our fishes . . . w/ the implied "we're doomed to have NO seafood in the future."

Werd.

Well, you may think it is only an amplification of global warming cycles. But generally, any/all warming is attributed to humans, and no cyclical trends are discussed by the alarmists. If anything it is suggested that the warming now is not part of any cycle, but solely due to industrialization.

Does this mean that I think that humans are making the world better by all of their consumption etc? No.

I never pay attention to "majority opinions" when discussing the validity of a scientific idea. Figuring percentages on "who believes what" is not part of the scientific method.

The fact that the global warming advocates continually try to argue that they "have some majority agreement" is one of the clearest demonstrations of their non-scientific approach to this topic.

I can see it now:

Two cavemen walking across the diminishing tundra. They’re arguing about global warming, it's effect on Mammoth hunting, and which one of them is at fault....

Easy, the one on the right.

LOL! :)

Alternative captions: "... and while they were arguing, the mammoths disappeared!"

Ork: "Whatever happened to those Neanderthal guys"
Bork: "They're up north waiting for global warming "

His name wasn't Paul "We'll starve by 1980" Ehrlich was it?

In the grand scheme of things man is rarely ever right.

So my Jetta may be safe?

It could feasibly happen… The size of the Tupperware tub I used was an approximation, and the amount of ice used was based on the statement “Glacial ice is denser than ice cubes” After several attempts to count the air in the ice cubes I went quite mad and just doubled the amount of ice and slammed the Scotch.

Although I am quite certain that Greenland is hollow. It is my belief that the interior land mass of Greenland is below sea level. So I contend that when the glacial ice on Greenland melts it will behave like my ice cube in a glass experiment. The water level will remain the same but with a lot less air.

I'm not so sure about Greenland. After all, Erik the Red and some of his buddies settled on the grass-fringed fjords of Greenland. Maybe a small part of Greenland isn't hollow. I think you should assume somewhere between 5 and 10% is not hollow. Sound good?

I think the edges are quite solid. But my research leads me to beleive the entire interior is below sea level. 5 to 10% sounds reasonable.

Glad I could make a valuable contribution to science. :)