Another fun climate change thread

Good movie though...

 

Braaaiinnss
Omnomnom

 

You need to have a LOL.

 

70s, 80s daytime 60s at night, love that global warming

 

Fascinating refutal

But seriously: care to explain why?

 

I take it your username refers to a nasty sunburn?

 

Wasnt much of an argument to begin with

"Ten percent of the land mass of the world is under glaciers"

....and...? Were the glaciers 1 ft deep or 100ft deep, and what year is that.

Yes, it is currently incorrect, 10% of the worlds land mass is not under glaciers.

But its a mute point if one is going to talk about surface area instead of volume

 

But Without His Naughty Mags How Would Hotwater Get Hot...???...



Cheers Glen.

 

This article too

Keeps going on about surface area, no mention of volume

Even contains this paragraph

Which doesnt actually say anything "Just a few degrees" ok, how many degrees? And no mention of who these "scientists" are or what they have worked out, how they worked it out

Some how magically a few degrees means greenland wont freeze again each 9 month long winter.


24 million cubic kilometres of total glacial ice, a figure thats about 40 years old.

Surface area of earth 510 sq klms, around 70% of that water, so about 360 million sq klms for the water surface area of earth.

On the instant of this article and many others "scientists" really just means screenwriters for tv docos.

It was a case that melting the glacial ice was never going to see us underwater

 

So, you dont know the date, you dont know the average, therefore the volume, you you have no idea how much there currently is, or how much we've lost......just like everyone else


This Calculating glacier ice volumes and sea level equivalents - AntarcticGlaciers.org site, you didnt even that site did you?

All they do to get the crazy figues of a 58/77m sea level rise is take current best guess for above sea level ice volume, convert it to the volume it would be if it all melted, then plonk it on top of the current surface area of the oceans of the earth and no where else. With a calculation that in itself is incorrect, It would only be 58m if it didnt move, didnt weigh anything, didnt spread out, didnt evaporate, didnt compact down

And thats as scientific as the get; convert volume of ice to water, then add it on top of surface area of the oceans.....and its not just them, they are getting it from the IPCCs AR4 report

Thats the UNs, Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change doing junior high math to add on volume to surface area

So how long have you been falling for that in the media? Decades now, without ever bothering to check....or even notice

This from the website YOU linked:

"
Calculating sea level equivalent

To convert a mass of ice into the total amount global sea levels would rise if the ice all melted (i.e., the sea level equivalent), we need to know how much area the oceans cover. This is usually given as 3.618 x 108 km2. A 1 mm increase in global sea level requires 10-3 m3 (10-12 km3) of water for each square metre of the ocean surface, or 10-12 Gt of water.


We can calculate the volume of water required to raise global sea levels by 1 mm:


Volume = area x height


Area = 3.618 x 108 km2


Height = 10-6 km (1 mm)


Volume (km3) = (3.618 x 108 km2 ) x (10-6 km) = 3.618 x 102 km3 = 361.8 km3 water.


We can convert km3 of water to Gt of water as we did above; 1 km3 water = 1 Gt water. In the same way, 1 Gt of ice = 1 km3 water. So, 361.8 Gt of ice will raise global sea levels by 1 mm. 361.8 Gt of ice is equivalent to 394.67 km3 ice.


If we took our 458.30 Gt of ice (as calculated above), then we could calculate the global sea level equivalent by:


SLE (mm) = mass of ice (Gt) x (1 / 361.8)


SLE = 458.30 x (1 / 361.8)


SLE = 1.27 mm"​

 

And here is is again on the NSIDC website

Facts about glaciers | National Snow and Ice Data Center

Which is only if you plonk it straight on top of the surface area of the worlds oceans only and it doesnt move

Not that the calculation was even correct in the first place, because they added up the volume of ice wrong

 

That's a heck of a lot of underwater people though. Wow. 230 feet!!

 

Would be more like 15ft at most

 

So really London would be screwed, 100% entirely. Diversity makes us stronger, according to the London mayor though.
Then Europe would be plunged into crisis, and in terms of the British Isles then the Scots would get flooded with English and Welsh folks. Society will be thrown back into the survival era, with politicians trying to manage obedience that once took many hundrends of years to tame.

 

Id say London is already screwed

 

More than enough to inundate a Florida resort owned by one individual whose initials are D T.