 
     |
| How dare you ! (Page 2/5) |
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 25, 08:50 AM
|
|
The water content of all of the ice that is already floating in all of the oceans as icebergs and sea ice—that's ice that forms in the polar regions when sea water at the ocean's' surface freezes during the polar winters—is already accounted for in the current sea levels. The current sea levels as of today. As of whatever day it is now. That's because of Archimedes principle of buoyancy. There is no contribution to any further rise in sea levels, regardless of whether the current "inventory" of icebergs and sea ice melts or remains frozen. That's the "genius" of this cartoon or meme:
The STUPIDITY of this cartoon or meme is that it's not icebergs and sea ice that climate researchers and well informed climate activists are thinking about when they consider the connections between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse-elevated land, ocean and air temperatures, the elevated temperatures-driven melting of glaciers and ice packs on land, and what that melting will contribute to higher sea levels as the current century unfolds.
They're thinking about water content that is not accounted for in current sea levels because it's ice that is still supported by the land underneath it, in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, Norway, the Alps and the Himalayas... anywhere and everywhere where there's a significant amount of ice on land, that is not currently displacing seawater in the oceans like icebergs and sea ice.
There's water that's been sequestered from the hydrologic cycle by remaining frozen for more than the past million years in Antarctica's glaciers... more than the past 100,000 years in Greenland... for the past 30,000 years in Alaska.
The whole climate mitigation "thing" is not about locking in the current climate and sea levels for an unlimited future. Scientists do not have all the knowledge and engineers do not have all of the tools to accomplish that. But another two or three hundred years of continued climate stability—achieved by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and/or otherwise neutralizing or countering the greenhouse effect—would be no small boon to humanity, as a whole.
Think of the differences in science and technology between today and 100 years ago. With another 200 or 300 years of continued climate stability to work with, all of the various "boffins", from climate researchers and other scientists, to engineers, architects, city planners, rural and agriculture experts, economists and other public policy gurus, should be able to put their heads together (so to speak) and figure out ways to better safeguard humanity against what Mother Earth could still have in store for us.
What's not to like about that?[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-25-2023).]
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
JUN 25, 03:18 PM
|
|
Oh, hell..
Rinse.
Put a bowl upside down on the table.
Pour some salt or sugar on it. Now keep pouring and poring and pouring...
What happens ?
As the pile on granules (the glaciar) on the bowl (the land) grows, the newly added material pushes off the material already there. The volume the bowl is holding doesnt change (even though the table is now one hell mess).
Water evaporates from the ocean. It falls as snow on the glacier adding more ice volume. That pushes some existing volume off. The offed stuff falls into the ocean, melts, fals as snow and the cycle repeats ad nauseum.
It's not climate science to understand the principal.
|
|
|
|
Wichita
|
JUN 25, 10:26 PM
|
|
What a leftist groomer looks like. They look like your average Biden voter and supporter.
 [This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 06-25-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 25, 10:40 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Wichita:
What a leftist groomer looks like. They look like your average Biden voter and supporter. |
|
That's idiotic. And there's not even a pretense of being related in any way to the topic—Sweden and nuclear energy—that was raised when this thread was created.
Wichita never disappoints me, because I've learned to expect nothing of value or interest from him.
It's kind of surprising that so many other forum members are letting his total asininity slide by without any comment. I guess this "everybody I don't like or agree with is a 'groomer'..." crap has really caught on.
I wonder how much more of his trash is going to pile up here before he finally drowns in his own rabies-infected drool.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-26-2023).]
|
|
|
|
Wichita
|
JUN 26, 06:56 AM
|
|
Do leftist understand that this is a white supremacists ideology?
 [This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 06-26-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 26, 08:15 AM
|
|
"Tory backlash as Education Secretary Gillian Keegan backs 'common sense' plan to let children change gender at school as long as parents agree"
James Tapsfield for the Daily Mail; June 25, 2023.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk...parents-consent.html[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-26-2023).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JUN 26, 08:46 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
This is another example of the same kind of CONFLATION that was mindlessly spewed onto this forum as a Copy and Paste.
|
|
Can I make a comment about this?
At no point ever have brown dress shoes been OK with blue slacks or a blue suite. This came about from Hipsters in the early to mid 2000s, e.g., when the Millennials were starting to enter the workforce. They started buying a lot of **** from Goodwill and Salvation Army, with the intent to wear clothes that were different and unique. This was done explicitly because the Millennials didn't feel like they were special enough, and everyone wanted to feel unique and different.
For my Gen-X friends... this was like the "non-conformists" who referred to themselves as Goth in high school. Remember these kids? The ones who said they were non-conformists, but religiously conformed to eachother by all agreeing to wear white face paint, black eye-shadow, black jeans and / or black fishnets and black fingernail paint?
This was the Millennial version of it. They started buying ridiculous looking socks, wearing pants that were "flooding" because they wanted to show off the socks. It became trendy in Europe as a result of "capri" pants, and then suddenly you had these Millennials in business who wore brown dress shoes, with blue suits that had very short pant cuffs.
This is not ok... it's completely ridiculous. You do not look sharp, most people are laughing at you. No one is saying... "Wow, look how sharp that guy is with this pants that are too short so we can always see his socks, and the fact that he cannot color-coordinate properly with his brown shoes and blue pants."
Please ****ing stop... this looks stupid as **** in corporate America.
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
JUN 26, 12:55 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Wichita:
Do leftist understand that this is a white supremacists ideology?
|
|
Does the Right realize that the subterranean lizard people are behind this anti-LGBTQ ideology?
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
JUN 26, 01:21 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
What is the difference ? Frozen water is frozen. How were glaciers created ? How were icebergs created ? What was each made of ? |
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The water content of all of the ice that is already floating in all of the oceans as icebergs and sea ice—that's ice that forms in the polar regions when sea water at the ocean's' surface freezes during the polar winters—is already accounted for in the current sea levels. The current sea levels as of today. As of whatever day it is now. That's because of Archimedes principle of buoyancy. There is no contribution to any further rise in sea levels, regardless of whether the current "inventory" of icebergs and sea ice melts or remains frozen. That's the "genius" of this cartoon or meme: |
|
Ah. Now you like memes.
Can you ever answer a question ?
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
What is the difference ? Frozen water is frozen. How were glaciers created ? How were icebergs created ? What was each made of ? |
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The STUPIDITY of this cartoon or meme is that it's not icebergs and sea ice that climate researchers and well informed climate activists are thinking about when they consider the connections between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse-elevated land, ocean and air temperatures, the elevated temperatures-driven melting of glaciers and ice packs on land, and what that melting will contribute to higher sea levels as the current century unfolds. |
|
Ah, honesty. Kudos. Are you a well informed activist ? NOT ! Or a well informed researcher ? NOT ? The Planet survived while the sea levels fell, making the the sea level drop.
The Archimedes principle of buoyancy. I don't think you understand it. Does that principle say sea level is constant and equal all over the Planet ? Does it say the SE Gulf of Mexico water level can be more than sea level ? By the way, the water volume on the Planet is constant. You said the SE Gulf of Mexico sea level is rising. Some one had to lose water for that to happen. Who was it ?
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
They're thinking about water content that is not accounted for in current sea levels because it's ice that is still supported by the land underneath it, in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, Norway, the Alps and the Himalayas... anywhere and everywhere where there's a significant amount of ice on land, that is not currently displacing seawater in the oceans like icebergs and sea ice. |
|
Where were all the Wackos when the sea levels dropped ?
What are you trying to say,  ?
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
There's water that's been sequestered from the hydrologic cycle by remaining frozen for more than the past million years in Antarctica's glaciers... more than the past 100,000 years in Greenland... for the past 30,000 years in Alaska. |
|
It's not being sequestered any longer.
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The whole climate mitigation "thing" is not about locking in the current climate and sea levels for an unlimited future. Scientists do not have all the knowledge and engineers do not have all of the tools to accomplish that. But another two or three hundred years of continued climate stability—achieved by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and/or otherwise neutralizing or countering the greenhouse effect—would be no small boon to humanity, as a whole. |
|
The stupidity.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 26, 04:16 PM
|
|
|
This wasn't the thread I wanted. [This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-26-2023).]
|
|
|
|