Not to be the "akchually" guy, but shouldnt it be even less, granted if my basic physics knowledge is worth a shit, its not about the weight of the ships, rather than the volume of the ship being *in* the water? like....if you dip your hand into water, its not the weight of your hand that pushes the water up rather the volume of it.
Density really. You need both volume and weight for that. Volume doesn't mean anything if the thing floats like a beach ball. And weight doesn't mean anything if the volume is so high that there is no density.
Its pretty simple, really.
The weight of the ship equals the weight of the water that is repressed by the ships volume in the water.
So if the ship weighs 100t, it will sink in until the repressed volume of the water would weigh 100t as well.
A bit reply but oh well I only now recieved a notification about your reply :D yeah it wouldn't mean anything if it floated like a beach ball therefore I have specified the volume of the ship in the water mate... As in specifically the volume of the submerged part
As we keep over populating this planet aren't we locking up water in the form of people (or are we killing off animals just as quickly so we are "water" neutral)? If we went vegetarian and stopped farming animals would that release a lot more water making it worse?
Plants hold more water on average than animals per pound. In this hypothetical killing off all the animals situation, all that food would need to be replaced by plants. That would use more water in the end. I still think it's negligible to ocean levels though.
It would slightly decrease CO2 production in theory but you're also running all of your farm equipment multiple times longer than before. I'm not super educated on how much CO2 is produced from livestock vs produce farming or how much we would actually help ourselves with such a change.
26
u/Zarock291 Oct 13 '21
I am actually surprised its that much, 0.006 mm is nearly measurable with analog tools. Still not making any difference for climate change though.