UNDER THE ICE WITH MALCOLM
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
Look, I’m no physicist and I’m no climatologist, in fact I left school at 13 because I wanted to learn stuff, but I certainly feel more qualified than Malcolm Turnbull and his lefty mates Tim Flannery and Ross Garnaut to tell you about how melting ice would affect sea levels, because it’s not exactly what they say and it’s not exactly rocket science either.
Now, my life has been one of inventing things, building things and growing things. Mr Turnbull’s has been a life of making money from money. So I reckon, productivity wise, I’m a little bit in front of Mr Turnbull.
So I’ll try to explain the physics of ice for Mr Turnbull. No, not the stuff you smoke, the fresh water that get hard when it gets really cold:
You see, the globe is not getting warmer (if only it was, food production would not be a problem). Despite what Mr Turnbull’s friends in the UN say, ice is actually increasing at both poles and has been for years, especially in the South.
At the Northern cap, where valuable CO2 is at its most productive as it is surrounded by industrialised nations, record cold temperatures have paralysed North America and Europe for the past five years.
But let’s not shoot Mr Turnbull and his mates down straight away... let’s play with them for a while, much like a cat plays with mice.
Okay, the Northern cap is a floating ice sheet where most ice volumes are below the surface, we see only the tips. Okay, Mr Turnbull, I’ll type slowly for you... shouldn’t that tell you the displacement factor already exists? Obviously not! And honestly, I can’t type any slower.
The above pic isn’t photo-shopped Mr Turnbull and it’s similar to all fresh water ice that floats in salt water. And the volume of salt water on the globe is well beyond your and my comprehension when it’s compared to a paltry amount of ice.
Are you still with me here, Mr Turnbull?
Okay, now water comes in only three forms, vapour, solid and liquid, and in this case it’s solid. (Oh, and by the way, water is a 100 per cent renewable resource, it always returns in one of those three forms.) Yep, your wee today is the water in Mr Flannery’s scotch tomorrow. Better not tell him that tho’.
Now I know this might be hard to get your head around, Mr Turnbull, but when ice melts it decreases in volume and when water freezes it increases in volume.
It expands by around nine per cent. A bit over that actually, but don’t take my word for it, I left school at 13, so stick a bottle of water in the freezer overnight and I'll wait here while you have a sleep.
Still not convinced? Well, how are you at arithmetic then Mr Turnbull?
Let’s take some northern cap ice which is up to 90 per cent under the water, so that leaves 10 per cent above the water which, when it melts, will decrease in volume but will add only a miniscule amount to its initial volume when absorbed by sea water.
Ahhhh, but hang on a minute, when 90 per cent of that ice (the part that is under water) melts, it decreases in volume by around 10 percent compared to what it was when frozen.
Just because most polar ice is under the water, it doesn’t mean it isn’t there, Mr Turnbull... just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
You see, sea water freezes at a much lower temperature and is far denser than fresh water, and it creates some complicated equations, so we’ll ignore that until after you have digested the simple stuff.
So, given that a displacement factor already exists under water and 90 per cent of that displacement decreases in volume by around 10 per cent when it melts... tell me, what do you reckon will happen when, or if, polar caps melt?
Yes, yes, Mr Turnbull, if those polar caps decide to melt (and they won’t inside the next ten thousand or so years, and even then not entirely) it will actually make not a zot of difference to sea levels.
But here’s the nub! If it ever did make a difference, Mr Turnbull, it would only be to LOWER sea levels.
That’s why not one Pacific Island has reported increased sea levels, they have only reported a fear of anticipated increased sea levels, a fear promoted by the outrageous lies of Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC.
And these fears mostly evaporate with increased aid.
So would you be kind enough to call your friends in the Labor Party and at GetUp, the ABC, Fairfax, The Guardian, Green Weekly and all your sexually confused associates in the judiciary residing on the north shore and explain to them that your thesis on global warming and increased sea levels is fundamentally flawed (or a load of bullshit)?
No? I didn’t think so.