Reply With Quote
refute the math, don't just go on blind faith of what you read on the internet.
That is not a written out equation.
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 al ude 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.
You cannot even understand my point.
refute the math, don't just go on blind faith of what you read on the internet.
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.
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
Are you WC? Googling furiously to compete with NASA is the WC way. Only comes up with minutiae and thinks its something too.
whats wrong? You dip s don't know how to do basic math?
All you have done is throw monkey .
explain where you are going to get the volume of water necessary to raise the ocean level 196 feet.
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.
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.
Thats all you do.
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 .
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.
what a ing 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.
My sentiments exactly, moron.
I noticed you just threw monkey and never refuted anything.
typical.
CC's sophist call outs to experts in their fields are so good
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.
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.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 08-27-2015 at 05:00 PM.
Look again. The equation allowed that every square inch of land in the world was buried in ice. That includes your permafrost.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
