/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15732239

>>15732239
ah yes, displacement doesn't exist, Archimedes was a fraud.

>>15732253
water is like 10% more dense than ice

>>15732253
yes

>>15732239

>>15732242
If glaciers that formed during the 600 years of the little ice age start to melt after the end of the little ice age, what does that prove other than that the little ice age ended?

>>15732298
It's 2023 and those glaciers are still there, dummy.

>>15732239
Is this actually true? I'm laughing at the preposterousness of what if it actually is. They've had us for absolute fools.

>>15732321
>Is this actually true?
Uh... technically, but it doesn't apply when the ice that melts is on land.

>>15732321
it could be true, I might verify it some time, but I guess the problem comes from melting glaciers and snow on land and not from fucking icebergs

>>15732239
what happens when the glacier is not in the water but on land?

>>15732331
Nothing because global warming is still fake.

>>15732301
sure, they took 600 years to form so they should take that long to melt

>>15732331
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

>>15732331
It will go to the sea and dilute the salt and lower the evaporation point and become a cloud and fall as snow and get packed into ice.

Hypothetically, if no inland ice melted and only icebergs did, wouldn't the ocean level lower because water is denser than ice?

>>15732346
A pound of ice weighs the same as a pound of water.

>>15732331
>>15732329
Amount of water in polar ice caps >>>>> land glaciers. Polar ice caps melting gives even low sea level then present. Land glacier melting raises that already low sea level very slightly, so the net effect would be slightly lower sea level then now anyway.
>noooo not that way, polar ice doesn't melt only land ice melts

>>15732239
Iceberg, sure. But what about the ice that’s not floating on water, but it’s formed on the continent itself?

>>15732321
>>15732298
>>15732284
>>15732253
Is this for real? People really didn’t know about this?

>>15732332
this

>>15732321
>>15732284
Who will anon believe today
Decades of accumulated evidence by climate researchers
OR
guy with cup of ice water where all the ice is already submerged within the cup
(When water freezes it expands due to the shape of solid H20 bonds being elbow-like. However most arctic ice is surface sheet ice and so when it melts, water is added to the sea level. It's not ice in the water becoming liquid that's the big problem, at least not in terms of impact on coastal human dwellings)

>>15732512
>climate researchers
In the trash it goes. You might as well ask why people won't trust decades of holohoax research from Israel.

>>15732512
Florida is about 100 feet above water.
Climate “researchers” say that water rise is about 25 cm, which is 1 feet.
There must be numerous places in Florida that is now 1 feet under water.
Show me those places and I believe you

>>15732284
Archimedes' principle is bullshit?

>>15732512
Anon, he is talking about real glaciers, not land surface ice sheets. Please stop with the climate alarmism nonsense, this is a science board.

>>15732512
Reminder that all global warming nutcases are shills of big oil, paid to make scientists look like a bunch of crooks. There has never been global warming, or climate change, or climate indeterminacy, nor intermittent climate deviation. Instead, the science has always been occasional intermittent weather fluctuations. See, science isn't doom and gloom trying to push carbon credits until people burn down every university. That is big oil pushing an agenda, making scientists out to be some kool-aid cult.

>>15732346
Icebergs aren't entirely submerged. The weight of an iceberg displaces a certain volume of water. The iceberg will rise or fall until the total mass of displaced water is equal to the total mass of the iceberg. Since the entire mass of an iceberg is equal to the mass of displaced ocean, this means that when a /floating/ piece of ice melts, it will not affect the water line.
Tl;dr >>15732367
Caveat 1: Liquid water expands as its temperature increases, pic related. The effect is relatively tiny, like a fraction of a percent, but the oceans are very deep, so even a fraction of a percent increase in volume can cause the sea level to rise a few feet.
Caveat 2: Not all ice is in the ocean.

>>15732594
>doesn't post a single location a foot under water
What did he mean by this? Science isn't navel gazing.

>>15732346
>>15732594
>Caveat 2: Not all ice is in the ocean.
d'oh, I even read where you wrote "if no inland ice melted and only icebergs did" but my brain still ignored it

>>15732599
Nigger, you've never heard of lakes and oceans before?

>>15732594
Answer this>>15732523
I am tired of bullshit “data” that anyone know scientists inflate (or deflate) to get fundings.
Show me hard evidence.
Not thunder or “forest fire” or hurricanes and shit like that.
Show me one piece of land that in this generation went 1 feet under water.

>>15732580
Is that why “woke” climate scientists bitch about nuclear and HYDRO in favor of solar and wind?
Seems like they are China bitches instead then

>>15732331
The water rises

>>15732594
>Icebergs aren't entirely submerged
Yep I remembered this after posting, I'm retarded

>>15732523
>>15732616
Tides are higher than 1 foot, retard.

>>15732594
So the percentage of extra density of liquid water compared to ice is equal to the percentage of the iceberg that isn't submerged?

>>15732647
Yes. Liquid water at ~0 C is ~10% more dense than ice, and on average ~10% of an iceberg sticks above the water.
Real numbers may vary due to the temperature of the water and the composition of both the water and iceberg.

>>15732629
>tides
No according to climate scientists, 25 cm rise of water, means that 1 foot of dry land, is now COMPLETELY submerged in water, aka its a PERMANENT part of ocean, sea now.
Where such phenomenon occurred? Show me where land that to people of y gen suppose to be above ground is now residing underwater ?
It’s very funny that instead of providing actual observable examples you hide behind humor.
If you think the best way to answer people questioning your “science” is to make fun of them, you are not practicing science, you are in a religious cult.

>>15732673
Meant to say gen x

>>15732673
Tides are much higher than 1 foot. Your argument is invalid.
>muh climate scientists say 1 foot in a generation
I looked it up and you're full of shit. The actual estimated sea level rise is 8 inches over 100 years.

>>15732716
Just yesterday someone posted a graph that showed 24 cm increase currently.
Just showing how climate “scientists” fuck with data for funding
I don’t care about tides, I care about land going permanently under water as suggested by “climate scientists”
There is no evidence, then it’s not real

>>15732716
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Literally in the first paragraph too
>between 15 to 25 cm
Apologize

How many nations have been wiped out by rising sea levels so far?

>>15732812
>>15732855
>over 100 years
Learn how to read.

>>15732239
Now, what would happen if the ice was sitting on a platform above the water level? And the melted ice ran down into the water?

>>15732873
Which is literally within one generation you fucking idiot.
Again, where is the submerged land?

>>15732893
>gen x was born in 1920

>>15732893
>literally within one generation
I have never heard of the word "generation" corresponding to 100 years in any context, and doing a one-second google search will give the common interpretation of generation in years, so that is not the literal meaning, if you are not a native English speaker maybe you are confusing generation with century

>>15732907
That was my fault. Sure. Now that we are clear, let’s see those pictures.
Surely there are places 1 feet submerged under the ocean by now.

>>15732921
You are nitpicking now.
Fine. You don’t have the pictures, nor any evidences that correspond with “one feet underwater by today” claim.
It’s ok. You did a fine job of solidifying my claim in all these “data” being hot trash

>>15732922
>Surely there are places 1 feet submerged under the ocean by now.
That place is called the shore.
You do realize that these are measurements, and not just theoretical calculations?

>>15732950
Nigga. Show me the shore moves then?
It should have been moved all across USA. It should have been visibly obvious through satellites given that Florida is only 100 feet above water.
Why not?

>>15732239
Don't try to reason with cultists. The right way to deal with them is to turn their degenerate bodies into pink mist.

>>15732889
LMAO, as always you are moving the goal post or doing some other halfassed trick.

>>15732331
The water you get that way is not even enough for crop irrigation. It will not even reach the sea. Without massive rainfalls there are no large rivers, is simple as that.

>>15732716
No prediction regarding Climate Change has been correct. It's all pseudoscience. When the observations don't fit the theory, just change the model.

>>15733085

>>15733069
LMAO, can't answer an extremely simple question

>>15732889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

>>15732716
So you are saying we have absolutely nothing to worry about? You mean the worse that will happen over the next 100 years is an imperceptible amount of beach recession, 2 degrees of warmth to the average weather, which, by the mean value theorem, implies a shorter/less intense winter, a better environment for plant growth meaning agriculture will improve, and a potential thawing of the detrimental north and south latitudes, opening up tens of trillions in new resources/land/trade routes, most of which will benefit exclusively my country and it's allies.
Here's my viewpoint. You are telling me I am supposed to accept this worst case change as a species ending threat, which I must give up my rights while also curtailing all unnecessary consumption, modern luxuries, and replace hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stuff with inferior more costly versions, but not any from Mr. Musk because he's bad, to barely slow this from happening? I'm must sacrifice all of this because enough billionaires and movie stars, with strange affinities towards friendships with pedophiles, claim the field of science that has only previously made false apocalyptic similar predictions, is right this time?
Let me give you some obvious truth that may change how you parse the world around you: If the only way for humanity to continue existing is as a slave class that willingly gave up its rights for security from an imperceptible threat, getting its nutrients from bugs, not being allowed to freely reproduce, and living solely within the confines of a 2000 ft radius, then humanity shouldn't continue existing, simple as

>>15733115
A small quantity of ice melting on a platform above a glass of water would cause post-glacial rebound?

>>15732580
>>15732622
Yes, that is exactly why. Big oils knows that Hydro will make them lose business and that Nuclear alone can wipe them out. So they push for two new energies that they know can't. Literally just fucking use your head for one second, the only "green" energies that are promoted as viable are the only two that just so happen don't have fixed capacity factors, can't increase output on demand to compensate for daily fluctuations in consumption, require storage of half their power for when they turn off for 50% of the year, require storage of energy at all, take up orders of magnitude more space, and can't be used to refit an already constructed oil/gas plant? Wow, what a crazy coincidence. They pulled this same shit in the 50s against nuclear, in the 70s against nuclear, in the 80s against nuclear, and in the 2000s against nuclear. Which, as you can clearly see, they have been unbelievably effective at. To the point that no new nuclear plant has been created since the 70s in the US. With Germany literally fucking claiming that them shutting down their last perfectly functional nuclear reactors, replacing them with coal plants, in the middle of a historic energy crisis, was them going green.

>>15733158
The worst shit I ever read about anti hydro dams was a “research” paper was about how it damaged environment and changes ecosystems (even though 10-20 years after a place goes underwater, an entire new ecosystem would become dominant there anyway) ignoring the obvious fact that solar and wind aren’t mana from sky. You need to fucking mine them out of the ground, and in the process release lead and Mercury into the environment.
And then some faggots talk about how “uranium mining” damaged the “natives” as if cobalt mining is not.
In regard of fooling the public, Simpson is one of the biggest culprit. To this day, when people think of “nuclear waste” they think of it as a “green goo” that is going to ruin the environment.
Fucking retarded emotional masses going to destroy us

>>15732351
>he still doesn't understand tides, or what 25cm look like

>>15732495
Yeah, but normally those are IQ 85 people on Facebook. I suppose the people here know and are just disingenuously pretending to not know that most ice is on land.

>>15732673
>according to climate scientists, 25 cm rise of water, means that 1 foot of dry land, is now COMPLETELY submerged in water
Those 25cm that are now permanently submerged were submerged 95% of the time before.

>>15733196
That really doesn’t make any sense. If we assume the tidelines almost always submerged those area before the 1 feet increase, then it’s logical to think that there is now exist another area that also usually submerged in water (which was not the case before) aka beach line moved
Where is the evidence for that?

>>15733190
25cm is one feet
It would be clearly visible.

>>15733106
You got your answer, now fuck off you ignorant troll.

>>15733261
>>15733135

>>15733190
>>15732351
I searched "Statue of Liberty high tide" to disprove this dumb image ironically, but Google can't even provide that, only shitty CGI images of the statue being flooded. If those fags don't even try to make deboonking info easily available, why shouldn't I believe climate change deniers?

>>15732392
>Polar ice caps melting gives even low sea level then present

yes ice floating in water melting won't change the level of the water, but ice melting on land does.
Glaciers and ice sheets are on land.

>>15733276
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

>>15733281
That only applies to land under the actual icesheets.
Unless you think land in south america is somehow being weighed down by ice sheets in greenland.

>>15732594
>Liquid water expands as its temperature increases. The effect is relatively tiny, but the oceans are very deep, so even a fraction of a percent increase in volume can a rise of a few feet
You are unbelievably retarded. The surface area of the entire worlds oceans is so large that any volume change due to thermal expansion is completely offset by increased evaporation rates. The vast majority of the subsurface ocean is effectively thermally insulated from changes in surface temperature. This should be fucking obvious, you are heating the surface of a liquid solely from above, the hottest molecules are already at the top, there is typically little convection occurring beyond 100m due to sunlight. This insulation is so intense that there is almost no seasonal temperature change past 100 meters.
Your graph is so fucking misleading that I'd have to assume you are intentionally trying to pull the wool over people, considering you even knew about waters minuscule thermal expansion to begin with. The world wide average temperature of the oceans is 3.5C, with the worldwide surface average being 17C. For there to be an even 1 foot height change from temperature related volume expansion, and assuming no effects from increased evaporation, you would have to heat the entirety of the worlds oceans to the same temperature as the surface average. This would take roughly 7*10^25 Joules which is over 10 times larger than the yearly TOTAL energy that strikes the earth from the sun. Look at picrel, this fucking alarmist graph literally proves this: the energy it would take to heat all the water not deeper than 700m by 1C would be roughly: 1x10^24 Joules, they themselves claim the surface of the oceans has only heated by 1/5th to 1/4th a degree over 80 years. With the lower 3000m having nearly no change. You are so unbelievably retarded it hurts. I'll see you in 1000 years when your few feet of thermal ocean rise occur

>>15733168
>Fucking retarded emotional masses going to destroy us
They already did 50 years ago bro, we are just enjoying the slow, but recently quite more rapid, decline. I give it at most another 50 years before either the States collapses into conflict or the country is left as a zombified shell of its former self.
>“uranium mining” damaged the “natives” as if cobalt mining is not
Are you Canadian? I've lived in the part of the US with the most Indians and the only time I have ever heard them brought up was during the keystone pipeline shit. With most of the 'native' protestors looking like picrel kek. Even then it seemed like there was more native opposition coming from the other side of the Canadian border. Why the fuck are your Indians so uppity lmfao, aren't they all mainly inuits or just copies of ours? They seemed to piss off after we gave them completely useless land with no ancestral ties to, cheap alcohol, and no taxes on casinos. You guys should try that.

>>15732871
I wanted the fucking Netherlands to drown so badly. Fucking stupid swampnigger country...
Climate "scientists" keep their job because of hysterical women. They never deliver.

>>15733168
>Fucking retarded emotional masses going to destroy us
Us? You mean (((us)))?

>>15733335
Not that us.
>>15733330
Lol if these “natives” wear that headset in university they would be accused of “cultural appropriation”
I don’t fucking get it.
Where do you want the oil to come from? What? They want to STOP the oil? Then fucking build dams and nuclear and even cuck wind and slowar and then demand it to stop. I mean, if oil stops for a few days, millions will perish around the globe.
Natives (lol I mean can you even call them native anymore? They are hapas) are uppity because country is weak and we didn’t beat their asses proper like USA did to shitting bull. Did you know natives who do gun trafficking from borders to Canada get a slap on a wrist? Yet legal owners keep losing their rights little by little. ? Gun traffickers? Nothing cause their color is different

>>15733370
>Not that us.
Then which 'us'? You are the retarded emotional masses.

>>15733378
Us is the minority in any country that doesn’t roll with emotions and whatever authority tells them.

>>15733200
It doesn't make sense and never will because it is just hair-splitting sophistry. They obscure any rejection of their claims through the apparent randomness of the tides caused by daily cumulative changes and geographic effects. If you took two pictures spaced out by 12 hours every day, for a long enough period, you would effectively capture the tide cycle and would be able to correspond high and low tide to a picture from the past, given you knew its origin date. They argue that because tides can vary by a foot, their claimed foot increase can't be accurately measured, which is just fucking retarded. Tides can vary from zero to 11 meters. If you showed them an old picture from low tide compared to a new picture taken at high tide with an 11 meter tidal range and 11 meters difference, they'd tell you global warming is worse than we ever imagined and that they need to accelerate their 'green' efforts. If you showed them no difference in an old photo and a new photo at the same exact tide, they'd tell you tides actually account for this. When they eventually claim over 11 meters in sea level rise, which means tides can't mask it anywhere, they'll say any evidence of no sea level rise is from some low pressure weather system or ocean current anomaly we didn't know about. What is extra retarded is the fact that average coastal tides range from 6 to 10 feet, meaning their claims of zero difference requires both photos be taken close to 24, 12, 6 or, 0 cycle hours from each other with whatever height offset they claim factored in. You can't win because they aren't playing your game bud.

>>15733383
You're obviously not a part of any such 'us', if such an 'us' even exists at all, which I doubt.

>>15733396
Actually I don’t include you in what I consider “us” since I don’t know you.
I define my “us” and you define yours. Simple

>>15733411
You can define whatever you like but it's not gonna make you into this fictional character who is rational and isn't just following authority.

>>15733395
Thanks for the throughput explanation of their pilpul.
I suspected that, but I wanted to know how he is going to defend it.
It sound extremely retarded, because if you can’t measure the changes physically, then you don’t have evidence. And if you got none, then your entire shit is more like a guess, not actual science.
I mean if you can’t measure that 1 foot accurately since it’s “random” then you can’t account for 10 feet either. At that point the entire fear of “oh no we are gonna drown” become null.
But it’s not our decisions. Retard will listen and follow and vote and destroy us.
It’s funny that these retards are so gone, that they think “climate change” will result in earth losing its atmosphere and become Venus.

>>15733417
Yes it does
I just did and it happened.
You can l make your own story too.
And I do follow authority, but not just blindly.

>>15733429
>And I do follow authority, but not just blindly.
Neither do the other retards who follow other authorities. No one is blind. People are just myopic.

>>15733431
>myopic
Or they just don’t attention to the details
Either way, I know I am not part of that group
Whatever you are, keep being you though.
I like talking to different type of people

>>15732623
/thread

>>15733437
What part of doing damage control for this monstrous golem world order is rational in your small mind? lol

>>15733441
I don’t understand what you mean by “damage control”

>>15733444
Bickering with other retards over what kind of environmental destruction and pollution is the "least bad" according to the latest soience even though it's clear that environmental destruction will escalate without bounds no matter which one of you is right in your narrow, autistic disagreement.

>>15733450
Ok here is 3 way out:
1- we start with nuclear and mine uranium , destroy a bit of nature in mining and pollute some rivers. We build more dams and change a lot of eco systems
2- we go for solar, and wind. result in the same amount of environmental destruction. Make sure to sacrifice to god of sun and wind or you are screwed
3- don’t do any, sit on your ass until you ran out of oil and coal and your lungs is black as a nigger skin.
As for why discuss it, if we can’t change it. It’s a board about soince and I like to talk about soience and it’s future implications

>>15733458
You see? Even when I rub it in your face, you're still stuck in the irrational, myopic little paradigm passed down to you by retards who came before you. Say, what exactly do you need to generate power for? What are you trying to power? :^)

>>15733461
Why? Almost 9 billion people rely on energy to feed themselves.
Take away the oil and gas and coal and countries like Britain Germany China Japan France all go into starvation

>>15732239
YLYL thread

>>15733469
>Why? Almost 9 billion people rely on energy to feed themselves.
If all this energy is needed just for people to feed themselves, how come the greatest power consumers are humbly-populated first world golem farms rather than the most populous nations on the planet?

>>15733477
The “greatest power consumer” is China, producing double the co2 of USA and more than entire Europe combined.
Beside USA, none of the first world nations are “humbly populated” in comparison to their landmass. In all cases; they are severely over populated and if you cut oil, they all gonna starve.
If you are saying that the first world lifestyle is culprit, yes it sure is.
We currently use the same amount of electricity despite using led lamps and it’s because instead of using one like before, we started using THREE.
There sure needs to be a change in culture, but no one willing too.
So new form of energy is more realistic than changing the level of consumption.

>>15733286
>Unless you think land in south america is somehow being weighed down by ice sheets in greenland
They effectively are:
"The direct raising effects of post-glacial rebound are readily apparent in parts of Northern Eurasia, Northern America, Patagonia, and Antarctica. However, through the processes of ocean siphoning and continental levering, the effects of post-glacial rebound on sea level are felt globally far from the locations of current and former ice sheets."
literally all you had to do to not look retarded is read the first paragraph in the wiki page. Not only does Greenland lower South America's relative sea level, it is still doing so by a measurable yearly amount thousands of years after. They actively account for this because it adds up to almost 10mm per decade.
Greenland is an archipelago with the majority of its glacial volume having sea level - sub sea level lowest points, meaning they are displacing the ocean. Infact, there is the least amount of glacial volume where ever high points of land are.
This is all even more true for Antarctica. Nearly all of its ice sits below sea level. most having their bottoms over 500 meters below sea level while one is 2500 meters below sea level. With the vast majority of the remaining glacial volume not being ontop of any land, but directly above sub-sea level ice. Look up a elevation map of Antarctica to compare and you will see I'm not lying. The thickest glacier on the planet, at 5000 meters, sits ontop of the ocean with a large portion below sea level. If you were to melt the ice in Antarticia below sea level, which is nearly half of it, ocean levels would decrease by a significant amount, purely from filling the previously displaced volume.
If the rest of the ice melted according to worse case estimates over the next 500 years, the glacial rebound and freed ocean volume from Greenland and Antarctica could potentially lower sea levels, not raise them.

>>15733489
>The “greatest power consumer” is China, producing double the co2 of USA
You're technically right about China specifically but it has no bearing on the overall point. The top power guzzling whores of this world aren't the generally the most populous.

>There sure needs to be a change in culture, but no one willing too.
What kind of "change in culture" do you have in mind?

>>15733332
>either cringe German or malding bantu still seething about the Afrikaners

>>15732321
Op image doesn't take into account the ice shelves that are hundreds of meters taller than mean sea level

>>15733500
A push against consumerism culture
A dictator is what you need to do it though

>>15733515
>A push against consumerism culture
What's "consumerist culture"? Do you live like the Amish? No? Are you willing to?

>>15733517
Are you willing to die so you can use disposable cups at McDonald's?

>>15733522
Why are you deflecting? I asked you some questions.

>>15733496
>If the rest of the ice melted according to worse case estimates over the next 500 years, the glacial rebound and freed ocean volume from Greenland and Antarctica could potentially lower sea levels, not raise them.

No, you absolute retard.

>>15733522
I don’t even out fast food dude
It’s too expensive
>>15733517
What’s consumerist? Everything.
From top to bottom. Air conditioner , refrigerator, toilet papers, supermarkets, air travel, cars
Everything is
So ye, you wanna fix it, you need to become Amish.
The problem is that if I do it, you wont and my effort is wasted.
That’s why you need a blood thirsty dictator to push it forward

>>15733524
Why are you being disingenuous?

>>15733272
A large fraction of polar ice caps are floating in ocean.

>>15733530
Can't answer the questions? Vile little parasite.

>>15733528
>What’s consumerist? Everything.
>From top to bottom. Air conditioner , refrigerator, toilet papers, supermarkets, air travel, cars
>Everything is
Huh. I seriously did not expect you to just be honest about it.

>The problem is that if I do it, you wont and my effort is wasted.
>you won't
I would, but most of the golems obviously wouldn't... so why are you doing damage control for their failing and unsustainable system? Let it fail.

>>15733534
Why are you being disingenuous? Is this the famed Russian honesty?

>>15733537
>nobody:
>you: muh russians
Legit mental illness. Ukraine lost.

>>15733539
>Outs himself
Is this the famed Russian intelligence?

>>15733535
>I didn’t think you would be honest
Why not? What do I have to lose?
By “you wont” I meant it as an example. Among all people there gonna be “I would but you wont” and also among nations and so on
As for why I am doing damage control? It’s because i am a man. And man likes to find solutions, even though it seems futile.
So I keep arguing and talking and finding solutions to problems that can’t be solved, because it’s a cheap type of entertainment

>>15733543
The voices outed themselves? Go tell your tard wrangler. Jesus fuck...

>>15733537
how did Russia come into this lmao? Are you one of those filthy fucking hohols or corpo dick sucking libtard? Do you want more gibs from west to "save your democracy"? Interestingly, the white supremacists Azov nazi hohols are okay to the libtards now because he's the ghost of kiev.

>>15733552
>>15733553
Go forum slide elsewhere Ivan

>>15733549
>It’s because i am a man. And man likes to find solutions, even though it seems futile.
The solution is to let it fail. The solution is not to keep trying to sustain the unsustainable. Again, you keep trying to find solutions... for powering what? Machinery that gobbles up beauty and turns it into shit. You're not solving anything. Even if we could generate power from thin air with zero consequences, it would only accelerate the destruction of this planet.

>>15733555
You're legit mental. Get help.

>>15733560
Vile little Ivan.

>>15733477
>>15733500
The US and Western countries consume more electricity because we can efficiently use more of it per second than 3rd world countries. Given all the same resources as the USA, same house, same car, same tv, same blender, etc... A country like India would have the average person scrapping these products for metals, breaking them, or simply not be able to use the majority of them the same amount that Americans do. Assuming the power grid scales and that everyone in India is given the average american household/lifestyle, the norm energy usage would be returned to within a month.
High energy usage requires low cost, quaility energy production. The US has had this consistently for 100 years, long before everyone else. The only countries that are capable of efficiently using and producing even somewhat similar levels of energy to western European countries are very specific east Asian countries that have been coached and managed by the United States or Britian. Even then, this only goes so far as is apparent with the best of the highest of the Asians, South Korea, still being 20% lower per capita than Americans. Despite America being having zero industry and almost entirely service sector jobs, while Korea is heavily focused in tech and heavy/advanced manufacturing, all of which are very power hungry. You also have to factor in the obvious effect of climate on necessary power usage. All Western European countries, besides Australia and NZ, require central heating for almost half the year. This alone with AC adds 2000-20000 to a countries per capitia consumption, as expected Australia and NZ are lower than the US, Canada, and Northern Europe

>The US and Western countries consume more electricity because we can efficiently use more of it per second than 3rd world countries.
Fuck me... how does one even come up with this sentence? lol

>>15733557
The planet can’t be destroyed.
Organism change

>>15732239
There is Land under the iceshields you morons

>>15733566
The planet is fine, the people are fucked etc., I agree. But you know that's not what I mean. Also, how do you deal with such levels of cognitive dissonance? If you're ok with the sheer destruction that will inevitable result from sustaining this sytem, why do you get your panties in a twist over diesel-powered windmills?

>>15733576
I told you. I like to speculate and think about it. All us will be dead long before things get REALLY fucked anyway. But I like to think, and I like to talk about it.

>>15732580
and also many of them are satanists/occult twats;
ancient babylonian/sumerian/eqyptian tablets were also quacking on about "le climate problems" among other resurfaced shit (rainbow alphabet agenda, witchcraft religions etc)

>>15733576
Also, I am already letting it fail anyway. It’s not like I am lowering my comfort level to save “le earth”

>>15733582
Lol you probably couldn't even lower your comfort level to lose weight

>>15733580
Shut the fuck up schizo

>>15733578
> I like to speculate and think about it
Then just say so instead of proclaiming that you're more rational than the windmill retards because your way of sustaining a nightmare dystopia is more effective in the medium term before it all collapses anyway.

>>15733585
Actually just wanted to quit soda and haven’t had one in the past 2 months.
Also at the same time I gave up caffeinated drinks too.
Oh my way to completely cut off sugar as well.
And it’s not because of weight. It just because I learned how bad sugar and caffeine are. So no, I don’t think I would have any issue.
I don’t about you. What mild addictive stuff have you been able to quit?
>>15733589
I am more rational because I know what’s gonna happen. You know one day you will die anytime you go to bed and anything you wake up. You know that none of the things you do in life matter because you are gonna die. Yet you still try to do stuff and have fun and learn a thing or two.
It is pointless at the end, but again, it’s fun.

>>15733596
>I am more rational because I know what’s gonna happen.
What's gonna happen?

>Yet you still try to do stuff and have fun
Is that what you think is gonna happen if we double down on this dystopia? LOL

>>15733589
Actually nuclear and hydro are not gonna result in a nightmarish dystopia, since there would be a lot more energy for people with much less pollution.
issue is that leaders are retarded

>>15733601
>Actually nuclear and hydro are not gonna result in a nightmarish dystopia
More power to a nightmarish dystopia => more of that nightmarish dystopia.

>>15733600
Yes. Because I can have fun and splash around as much as I want and live happy and die in peace. The “ nightmare stuff” is going to happen long after I am dead, so ye, it doesn’t matter to me.
It could have been better if people like me had our way, but oh well.
As for what’s gonna happen, eventually we ran out of energy and then no more party time for humans, back to the agri world.

>>15733603
It won’t be nightmarish to me.

>>15733605
>I can have fun and splash around as much as I want and live happy and die in peace.
LOL. Hopefully you "splash around" in your own vomit soon when your cattlemasters finally use biological weapons to cull their overgrown minions.

>>15733606
You're either completely delusional or the human equivalent of a rat/cockroach hybrid. One of the two. No other options, logically speaking.

>>15733607
You just said there is no solution to this. You just said it’s no logical to argue about whose method can save the world because it can’t be saved.
But you also have a problem to enjoy life knowing that you can’t fix it?
Wtf
Do you expect us to just mourn day to day? Even though there is nothing that can be done about it?
Make up your mind lol
>>15733609
I be dead. So it won’t be nightmarish to me.

>>15733616
>You just said there is no solution to this
The "solution" to it is to let this system fail and maybe even help it fail as soon as possible so as to minimize the damage it can do.

>>15733607
>when your cattle master cull you
You mean death? That’s gonna happen eventually anyway

>>15733622
This is what "rationality" looks like. Jesus fuck, how did they even manage to produce such golems?

>>15733619
>the solution is to let it fail
Retard, splashing around and having fun is the way you gonna make it fail, not by living like a miser.
The more you strain the system, the faster it will collapse
And again, it will stay up, as long as there is oil. And peak oil won’t happen in our life time. So no, you will never see the system collapse, nor see the peak oil and nor the nightmares that energy struggles for the oil leftover will ensue
So , here the solution. Have fun

>>15733624
Yes
Death will happen
So?

>>15733527
"The Ross Ice Shelf is the largest ice shelf of Antarctica (about the size of France). It is several hundred metres thick... Ninety percent of the floating ice, however, is below the water surface... the freezing of seawater below the ice mass increases the thickness of the ice from 40 to 50 cm/year"
"while in West Antarctica the bed can extend to more than 2,500 m below sea level."
"The Filchner–Ronne Ice Shelf... 430,000 km2, making it the second largest ice shelf in Antarctica (and on Earth)..." It has a bottom sea level depth in the hundreds to thousands of meters. An Ice shelf is literally: "a large floating platform of ice that forms where a glacier or ice sheet flows down to a coastline and onto the ocean surface" It displaces even more water than an ice cube would due to traps sediment and air bubbles decreasing its density: " density of cold seawater is about 1028 kg/m3 and that of glacial ice from about 850 kg/m3[5][6] to well below 920 kg/m3, the limit for very cold ice without bubbles."
"the bed of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is, in places, more than 2,500 meters (8,200 feet) below sea level. It would be seabed if the ice sheet were not there... the Antarctic ice sheet is about 25.4 million km3, and the WAIS contains just under 10% of this. The weight of the ice has caused the underlying rock to sink by between 0.5 and 1 kilometre in a process known as isostatic depression... before the ice sheet occupied the region, when much of West Antarctica was covered by the ocean"
"IPCC Fifth Assessment Report discussed the possibility of the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet... medium confidence... would not add more than several tenths of a metre to sea level rise... In the absence of a collapse add around 6 cm to sea level rise" This "collapse" is literally a "centuries-long, "unstoppable" process".
Compare this map with my previous map to see how much ocean is displaced by Antartica

>>15733626
>splashing around and having fun is the way you gonna make it fail
Then splash around and have fun, if that's what you call your miserable existence. Why shill for "better" energy sources?

>>15733629
"Rationality" has always been golem-code for severe mental illness. Thanks for demonstrating.

>>15733634
Yes. Better than your version of “life is shit and will get shitteir but don’t even have fun and live as a miser because life will get peak shit some time long after we die”
Think about it hard
>>15733631
Why? Cause I don’t want to have a shitty life when I am old.
I don’t like the result that their failure of implementing solar and wind will bring.

>>15733637
Your profound mental retardation can't be helped.

>>15733555
its easy to spot a hohol nigger lmao
>gibs me dat

>>15732889
>Arctic and Antarctic are on a platform (land) above water

>>15733555
>>15733650
80% chance that this is a Slava Ukraini schizo replying to himself to save face.

>>15733661
Nope. I'm not >>15733555. That retard is a filthy nafosister hohol.

>>15733667
Then what are you? Literally Ivan? Why do you care so much about the Slav Wars franchise?

>>15733630
What's with the fucked up colour map lmao
do climate "scientists" not know about perceptually uniform colour map?
>>15733669
I wouldn't if my government would stop sending my money to hohols and improve our healthcare instead.

>>15733688
>I wouldn't if my government would stop sending my money to hohols and improve our healthcare instead.
Which government is that?

>>15733650
imagine repurposing old agitprop because your best got mobilized to die in donbas elmao

>>15733694
>agitprop
Leftistard detected.

>>15733527
>>15733630
cont.
"Large parts of the WAIS sit on a bed which is... below sea level... Parts of the Antarctic ice sheet that rest on bedrock below sea level have begun to discharge ice fast enough to make a significant contribution to sea level rise?" Literally how, please explain to me because I don't get it. How can below sea-level ice, that is literally displacing more water volume frozen, contribute in any way to sea level rise after its melted and takes up less space?
"estimate rapid drawdown of Thwaites Glacier will begin in 200 – 1000 years... The Thwaites Ice Shelf, a floating ice shelf which braces and restrains the eastern portion of Thwaites Glacier. Ice... lost in this century will only amount to several centimetres of sea level rise. the glacier bed slopes downwards at an angle, and lies well below the sea level... data... colllected... showed that the most vulnerable parts of Thwaites Glacier sit 2.4 km below the sea level."
"ice flow theories will be re-evaluated in light of new data from recent ice-penetrating radar surveys which revealed... three previously unknown deep subglacial valleys affecting the "mountainous subglacial topography beneath the ice divide". These... features are likely to have a significant impact on models and calculations related to ice flow"
"Queen Maud Land... roughly 2.7-million-square-kilometres... borders... British Antarctic Territory 20° west and the Australian Antarctic Territory 45° east"
Picrel is a topographic map, you can determine where Queen Maud Land is using the longitudes. Compare it with the other two maps provided by Nasa, you will see smaller glacier thickness of around 1000 meters or less for most of this entire region. This region is dominated by fjords and huge mountains. The purple region enclosed within the black outline are iceshelfs. Make sure to use the southern pennisula as reference to distinguish land from them.

>>15733656
Yes, Antarctica is an actual landmass. A lot of the ice near the arctic is on land too. Obviously not all of it.

>>15732239
>>15732331
About this
Even if we were to ignore the other problems from climate change (desertification, more natural disasters, changing weather patterns, effects to vulnerable wildlife causing extinctions and so on) and assume that rising sea levels was the only problem more CO2 gave us, it'd still be wrong, a lot of the planet's glaciers are on land and are not floating willy nilly on the sea

>>15733799
Nice gish gallop, just post any sign that the ocean levels have risen by a foot retard.

>>15733813
They haven't risen by a foot
An average rise of 6 to 8 inches is barely noticeable over a period of 100 years and on an ocean that's constantly shifting by subjective humans who are known to not able to even judge length or temperature correctly
I just hope you're young enough to suffer through the time when there's sweeping crop failures and then you'll regret sucking off Exxon and Shell and the Koch brothers and the other billion dollar companies you dickride so hard

>>15733838
>no evidence
Concede the point.

>>15733799
>>15733813
I hope you have space in your house for the millions (I repeat, millions) of spics/niggers that will illegally enter your country when their countries become literally uninhabitable

>>15733848
LOL imagine being this retarded faggot the kikes already did that without your made up doomsday nigger

>>15733842
More evidence than "le hurr it's not happening cause Dennis Prager said so"

>>15733860
You have baseless claims without any shred of observation. In place of demonstrating any area of land now covered by a foot of water, you choose to get lost in
>muh six inches
Which you also don't provide any evidence for.
You are why nobody believes in the doomsday cult. Turn off the AC and eat your bug juice. Lead by example if you can't lead by persuasion.

>>15733853
20 million vs the current African population of 1.2 billion and an above replacement fertility
Look, I could argue with you all day, but time will prove me right
I just hope you're making money off of denying climate change cause the day you realize you're wrong, it's not gonna be a pretty day

>>15733872
It is too bad you couldn't just have evidence for your death cult. kek. Better get to drinking the bug slurry if you expect anyone to believe with you.

>>15733866
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVXOC6a3ME
There's tons of observation
If anything, you're the ones making baseless claims

>>15733714
>>15733630
>>15733496
>>15733527
cont.
>picrel is a topographic map of with most of the major locations labelled. The Thwaites Glacier and its Ice Shelf are located in the large cove right next to the label for the Amundsen sea
>nearly every ice shelf extends a thousand feet in most places below sea level, while being typically only 10-60 meters high above sea level, which is why they are colored purple on the third map
>the antarctic plateau is not well defined, with it generally accepted as the entire inner east continental mass with height at least greater than 2000 meters. Which basically is the entire eastern mass excluding both the transantarctic mountains and all the land from the 2000 topographic line to the coast. You can roughly see it's extent on this posts map. It includes all domes, the south pole and much of Maud Land, the southern and eastern portions
>if you look at map 1, most of the southern plateau including Victoria land does not have an above sea-level bed, with some parts extending as deep 2000m. This part of Antarticia contains the deepest ice on the planets, at 5000 meters close to Dome Circle. Most of this area does not have an above water-level base either.
>Lastly the far eastern portion is an area with land base above 1000 meters cut up by many meandering fjords and numerous tiny islands. Parts of which have bases that extend over 4000 meters below sea-level
>to summarize the EAIS, if it has extremely high elavation, it is likely that its base is far below sea-level, otherwise if it has an above sea-level base, ice thickness ranges from 500-2000 meters
>Almost all other glaciers besides the ones mentioned make up a fraction of a percent of ice volume

>>15733799
Glaciers make up a fraction of total ice volume. If every-single one of the melted and all the water directly went into the ocean, sea-levels would change by at most .4 meters

>>15733496
>>15733630
>>15733714
>>15733882
>>15733527
cont.
>picrel is an infographic, with the bed ice-depth cross sections for 1 part of Greenland and 9 different parts of Antarctica. * It should be noted that the massive sea formed by the below sea-level bed in Greenlands inner valley, starts nearly exactly where there cross section is, you can see the massive drop off followed by shallow negative sea-level bed. However, the portion covered by this cross section is effectively a massive system of fjords (see top left image in infographic, each being around 12 km wide and up to 1400 meters deep, leading out to the ocean. Going slightly farther up leads to a much more uniform and, below sea-level, bed.
>Red lines represent a pixel above the stated sea-level on the x-axis and is just to make it easier to read
>Looking at the first Antarctic cross section, you can see how much of the WAIS is completely underwater, with most of it being pressed against the bed
>the second cross section is basically identical to the A-A' in the first bottom right cross section, just that it ends sooner. I had difficultly finding any EAIS cross sections that didn't go exclusively over above sea-level beds. Even then, you can still see a large amount of ice under the sea-level
>the top set of 3 cross sections on the right are just more examples of how deep the WAIS bed is
>the left middle graph on the right shows a 3d version of cross sections, with the west facing you. The giant green blob is essentially the Eastern plateau
>the right middle graph on the right shows the only good example of a below sea-level bed cross section for the EAIS. The Ronne entrance is basically on the other side of the Peninsula from W and Law dome is at D on the first Antarctica map

>>15733496
>>15733630
>>15733714
>>15733882
>>15734178
>>15733527
So can someone answer any of my questions: 1.why does everyone, including the main study half this shit is based on: https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/7/375/2013/tc-7-375-2013.pdf
assume a uniform density for ice that is completely pure, with no sediment, or trapped air bubbles. Despite wikipedia and multiple other articles/papers claiming 850-to far below 917kg/m3 being the acceptable range. Isn't half their fucking claimed historic temperature data literally from 100,000 year old trapped air in ice cores? With the claim that you can go anywhere, drill down, and get accurate data? The pressures are also not enough to change ices relative density compared to water under equal pressure. Why is it ok to basically just assume an extra 7% to all ice that causes rises in sea levels? That seems stupid for an even worse case scenario calculation.
2. Why is any in pic related taken as acceptable modeling practices? The first assumption alone seems like it would never occur down to a low enough error in nature. How the hell would the local, water temperature, water salinity, water particulate count, water density, sea bed geometry, ice shelf geometry, creatures, ice purity, torn up sea bed from the shelf movement, and fifty other factors all cancel out enough so that you can just average away everything and assume all ice beyond the ground point as effectively floating with no displacement. It clearly is fucking still attached to the sheet, with potential for entire parts to not be touching the water, form air bubbles etc.... This should cause an extremely complex fractal that is impossible to accurately model, just like the thousands fjords already originating there and all fractal coasts. Some of these shelfs form mile long sheets suspended above the water. That doesn't seem like a trivial factor you can wish away with a spline every couple kms

>>15732327
This, anyone else here needs shooting for being a mong.

>>15733267
Google image search has not been even remotely functional for quite some time.

>>15734367
>>15733496
>>15733630
>>15733714
>>15733882
>>15734178
>>15733527
final.
>we excluded data from a recent (2011) survey because the rapid thinning of this glacier meant that the ice thickness had reduced by ∼ 40 m or 3 % of the total thickness
>This DEM provides detailed elevation data over rock...but performs poorly over ice sheets... some places with known positional errors of > 10 km
>Over both ice shelves and ice sheet we removed pits and
spikes resulting from occasional bad data points and corrected gross interpolation errors
>we assign a ±30 m uncertainty to the
surface elevation grid. rising to ±130 m over mountains.
>Data distribution in airborne radar surveys is highly anisotropic: across-track sampling may be 3 or 4 orders of magnitude lower than sampling along flight tracks
>34% of (1km2) cells have data within them, 80% have data within 20 km, with greatest distance from a grid cell
to the nearest data point being 230 km.
>gridding, we found median absolute errors ranging from ∼28 to 140m
>This suggests that these errors arise from the simplification of a continuously and rapidly varying surface with mathematically defined curves, compounded by the representation of these curves with a regular, relatively low-resolution 5-km grid
no shit kek
>In extreme cases, these thickness errors exceed 1000m
>absolute error in extrapolated grids up to 20km from data... median error ranging from ∼100 to 260 m... Beyond 20k... The maximum errors in these tests were ∼ 1800 m
>these analyses suggest a conservative error estimate of ±300 m for the 66 % of cells without data
3. Is any of this even useful? If the data from this study with so much uncertainty is even wrong by 10%, won't that make every study based on it just objectively wrong? I gotta give them some respect for trying, but this seems like a near impossible task unless you had a blank budget to use the military to gather data.

The (((data))) on global warming is all fake, the (((scientists))) who produce the fake data are all liars

>>15733872
Nigger
The ONLY reason that those migrants can make it here is that a ton of retarded ngo + millions of retarded bleeding hearts funding them and helping them
IF it gets so bad that their country is now UNINHIBITED, it would be already bad in Europe and all those bleeding hearts (now facing starvations because the food import process from turd would countries is halted) will turn into blood thirsty savages.
At the same time, the blackies, try to move to a “colder area” but because no one is helping anymore, will turn into a raping killing looting tornado. As they move, because they don’t have any unity, they will start to eat at each other and slowly their numbers shorten. At the same time any country they enter as the move to Europe will kill them (because they are hungry and will loot those nations as well)
And by the time they get to Europe (which will take a long time, given that it will be so hot appreantly and no one is helping them) instead of facing peace loving soft bleeding heart, they will face blood thisty savages who will turn them into Swiss cheese.
It’s like how helevatia entered gall
You actually think migration would be the same as now? Fucking idiot
Btw, by that day we all be long dead, and Europe will possibly be at least half non white, if current “replacement migration” because “population is collapsing!!!!!” Kikenomics continues.
>>15733880
>muh data
>muh computer graphics
A god damn PICTURE please

>>15733564
Not the same anon
but that is called the Jevons Parodox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

>>15732594
Not quite!

>>15732716
Incorrect.

>>15733318
Incorrect.

>>15733496
Almost, but not quite. Try again.

>>15733563
Wrong.

>>15733630
Nice try, sport!

>>15733714
lol

>>15733882
lol

>>15734178
lol

>>15734434
lol

>>15734630
Incorrect.

>>15732239
why arent you worried?
U SHOULD BE WORRIED
PLEASE WATCH OUR NEWS
THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111
U NEED TO SEE IT
U NEED TO WATCH OUR NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWS
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>15733880
You realize that has nothing to do with sea level rise fucking kek. Is this the best the establishment has to throw at it? You are on par with a schizo with cgi. The thing about schizos is they have to do this shit because they aren't a well funded death cult, unlike the soience. You should really consider why there isn't a new picture of land underwater.
You can't even start to deboonk the claims without going on baby tilt.

>>15735178
>incorrect
Back it up then?
Who is gonna send money to fill up refuges stomachs when they turned into literal rapefugees and you yourself are starving?

>>15734630
>A god damn PICTURE please
>If you can't produce a picture it's not real
Thanks for deboonking atoms and evolution and white dwarfs and photosynthesis and supernovae and the big bang genius

>>15735351
I'm sorry; who are you, little man?

>>15735284

is this thread autosaged?

>>15735847
yes, that seems to be the case

>>15733799
All those things listed are well withing humans capability to adapt. Let the free market find the solutions instead of demanding the government impose a carbon tax.

>>15735465
Again, you comparing something INHERENTLY impossible to picture, with something like “land is under 1 feet of water now”
Pretty disingenuous but hey, when I take your charts away, that’s all you can do anyway
>>15735825
If you can’t back up your claim about “refugees gonna come to you in billions” then don’t make one