To: James J. Roper PhD=20 Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:27 AM Subject: Re: Ocean Level Rising
JAMES: I screwed up! I screwed up big time! I am embarrassed. I = apologize to you. I am an engineer, and I should have known better. I = acted too quickly without thinking carefully. BUT, I do know more, now, than I did just hours ago. I will not make = the same mistake again. I will try not to make a similar mistake in the = future. Wouldn't it be great if all the people in government, politics, science, = religion, and the advocates of global warming; responded to their = mistakes and misunderstandings in the same way? Things could move = forward. Remember... the Catholic Church advocated an Earth Centered System until = 1835... The Catholic Church was 292 years behind in 1835... and that was = only 172 years ago. My intention was to show a large non-linear relationship between ocean = radius and ocean volume. Unfortunately, my example was true only for an = initial ocean radius of zero. In fact, at a radius of 4,000 miles, a = 20-foot increase in ocean radius is almost linear with volume. I = demonstrated the folly of prejudicial science. I received 18 email responses within a few hours. Two blew me off. = Three attributed ocean level rising primarily to thermal expansion. = Eight made extensive comments and helpful explanations. Two made = erroneous arguments (like I did). One did not believe that the ocean = even has a radius. Three of the emails correctly discerned and = explained my error. We must resist believing-in and advocating things that we only read... = Things which others have read, believed, and then wrote about. In 1999, the Y2K problem was certain to be a disaster. Even kitchen = appliances would cease to function. Chaos and anarchy could result. = People bought guns and food. Where were all the experts who should have = known better? =20 In 2002, the U.S. had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD and = end Iraq's support for terrorism. Experts said there were aluminum = tubes, bio-weapons trailers, bio-attack drones, and uranium purchases. = Anyone doubting the experts was unpatriotic, but the all patriots, like = all the experts, were all wrong. =20 In 2007, global warming is certain to be a disaster. "Tens of millions = will be flooded out of their homes each year." The experts include Al = Gore, who has a degree in 'government' and has written a book about what = he has read. Has anyone ever watched a campfire? It starts, it grows, it gets hot, = and it gets cold. How many global warming experts have been watching = the Sun? James T. Conklin Longwood, FL -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- ----- Original Message -----=20 From: James J. Roper=20 To: James T. Conklin=20 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:56 AM Subject: Re: Ocean Level Rising Dear James Conklin, Adding more math to the debate. Regarding your second point: > 2. The ocean is a spherical body of water. The ocean volume varies = as=20 > the cube of the ocean radius. Therefore, for the ocean radius to = increase=20 > 20 feet, the ocean volume must increase 8,000 times more than for a = 1-foot=20 > radius increase. For the ocean radius to increase 40 feet, the ocean=20 > volume must increase 64,000 times more than for a 1-foot radius = increase. > =20 For the volume of a sphere to increase by 1 foot (let's simplify the=20 math and say 0.5 m), in which the sphere has a radius of 6400km, would=20 require changing the volume of 4/3 pi r^3 by increasing r by 0.5. Then, = to compare that with a 10m increase (20 x the 0.5). Volume "as is" =3D 1.0979 x 10^^21 (if the world were water) 0.5 m increase =3D 1.0979 x 10^^21 ^ within rounding error. 10 m increase =3D 1.0979 x 10^^21 within rounding error. This basically suggests that the increase of 1 foot would be a very very = small percentage of the total. So, your scale of 6,400 times is still a = small volume of liquid relative to the frozen ice and temperature=20 expansion available. I find it interesting that there are so many ways to calculate that=20 64000 times something very small is still small! I also wonder what exactly is the inconvenient part of all this? Jim
