Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

see post #17

---

That is not a written out equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

NASA actually counts all the ice caps and glaciers. Then there is this thing called a spreadsheet. Amazing!

---

:lmao

refute the math, don't just go on blind faith of what you read on the internet.

For anyone interested in what they are talking about and tired of CC's WC style stupidity the article raised concerns with changing ocean temperatures and the behavior of glacial collapse.

We here have talked about capillary action, the altitude of the south pole and outlying regions and the survey of the antarctic ice sheet. How entire glaciers are thinning to fall/slide off the continent and float out to sea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

refute the math, don't just go on blind faith of what you read on the internet.

---

You cannot even understand my point.

In latin it's called reductio ad absurdum. Anyway you haven't even come up with a figure you just point out that to you the number looks like its going to be big and call it a day.

I'm not surprised you think it's valid but your scope is just limited, Bubba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That is not a written out equation.

---

R =current ratio of water to land (2.84)
C= claimed rise of oceans in feet (197')
I=Increase in volume from water to ice (10% or 1.1 of water volume)
A= depth of land ice necessary to equal 197' of water rise

C X R X I = A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

As for the "expansion of water" theory the real numbers (lets say from 80 degrees F to 85 degrees F or 26.667 C to 29.44 C) are:

The formula:

change in volume = initial volume X volumetric temperature coefficient of water at that temperature X (final temperature minus original temperature)

1 X .000207 X (29.667 - 26.667) = .000621

In other words, with a given volume of water at 26.667 C and the temperature rises to 29.667 C the volume will increase by only .0006 %

---

Are you WC? Googling furiously to compete with NASA is the WC way. Only comes up with minutiae and thinks its something too.

:lol

whats wrong? You dipshits don't know how to do basic math?

All you have done is throw monkey shit.

explain where you are going to get the volume of water necessary to raise the ocean level 196 feet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Are you WC? Googling furiously to compete with NASA is the WC way. Only comes up with minutiae and thinks its something too.

---

As a matter of fact I have an engineering degree and work with water/steam volumes/pressures as they relate to temperature all the time.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag..._Sea_Level.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

As a matter of fact I have an engineering degree and work with water/steam volumes/pressures as they relate to temperature all the time.

---

Uh huh. You don't demonstrate the capacity to make a statistical argument nonetheless. Less self-fellating talk more demonstration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Uh huh. You don't demonstrate the capacity to make a statistical argument nonetheless. Less self-fellating talk more demonstration.

---

:lol at the blowhard talking about self-fellating.

Thats all you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lol at the blowhard talking about self-fellating.

Thats all you do.

---

So now you have devolved completely off topic and gone completely ad hominem. My work is done. You lose.

CC cannot make a valid statistical argument despite having an engineering degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So now you have devolved completely off topic and gone completely ad hominem. My work is done. You lose.

CC cannot make a valid statistical argument despite having an engineering degree.

---

What statistical argument is necessary? The math stands on it's own. If you want to refute it, then get after it and show your work like I did. Otherwise quit throwing monkey shit.

So CC's final arguments were 'here are some of the numbers and it looks like it might be big' and 'I have an engineering degree.'

What an idiot.

I didn't even add this to the equation:

About five percent of Earth's water is frozen solid and exists as glaciers covering about ten percent of the land surface. The glaciers are are generally located in high mountain ranges but there are huge ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

with 10% of the earths land surface covered by glaciers you have to take that 570' of ice sheet and multioly by 10 to get how high/deep those glaciers would have to be to raise the ocean level 196 feet.

in case you cant do that simple math the answer is the glaciers would all need to be 5700' high/deep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So CC's final arguments were 'here are some of the numbers and it looks like it might be big' and 'I have an engineering degree.'

What an idiot.

---

what a fucking ignorant pussy that can't even back up his bluster by doing simple math.

more googling to defeat NASA! FIGHT!

Anyone else want to talk about this? I'm done with stupid.

It is interesting to watch sophistry in action though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

more googling to defeat NASA! FIGHT!

Anyone else want to talk about this? I'm done with stupid.

---

My sentiments exactly, moron.

I noticed you just threw monkey shit and never refuted anything.

typical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I would love to see this guys calculation.

I'm calling bullshit on that claim.

---

CC's sophist call outs to experts in their fields are so good :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

R =current ratio of water to land (2.84)
C= claimed rise of oceans in feet (197')
I=Increase in volume from water to ice (10% or 1.1 of water volume)
A= depth of land ice necessary to equal 197' of water rise

C X R X I = A

---

So ice exists only on land?

And not in permafrost?

I think some water may have been left out of your equation.

Antarctic glaciers terminate on land or in the sea, as floating ice shelves or grounded or floating outlet glaciers. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 25,400,000 km3 of ice, which, if it melted, would be equivalent to a sea level rise of 58 m[1].

http://epic.awi.de/4505/1/Lyt2001a.pdf

No need to fumble around with napkin math and harebrained modeling. That is just Antarctica. 58m = 190 ft btw. You determine the expansion by weight because salinity is involved.

That was tough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Antarctic glaciers terminate on land or in the sea, as floating ice shelves or grounded or floating outlet glaciers. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 25,400,000 km3 of ice, which, if it melted, would be equivalent to a sea level rise of 58 m[1].

http://epic.awi.de/4505/1/Lyt2001a.pdf

No need to fumble around with napkin math and harebrained modeling. That is just Antarctica. 58m = 190 ft btw. You determine the expansion by weight because salinity is involved.

That was tough.

---

About 7/8 of the floating Antarctic ice sheet is already under water. Thus, it has already displaced 7/8 of it's volume of water. You are counting it twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So ice exists only on land?

And not in permafrost?

I think some water may have been left out of your equation.

---

Look again. The equation allowed that every square inch of land in the world was buried in ice. That includes your permafrost.