Newsweek: Climate change is making the oceans sink

The global warming claim is that land glaciers are melting into the oceans, adding to the total water. This has been happening since the early 1700s, though, so their claims are irrelevant.

*Liquid water would have the same mass as frozen water

Bro this has been happening since the ice age ended, glaciers haven't grown for tens of thousands of years.

Well, they grew during the Maunder Minimum and were shrinking before that during the Medieval Warm Period. It stands to reason that they were melting during the Roman Warm Period and probably grew again between 400 and 1000 AD.

Yeah, but glaciers would retain the same mass, volume, and density since it's frozen water. Therefore, it turning into liquid wouldn't affect the force of the water.

Climate Change is real goys!!!

… The claim is that more water is being added TO the oceans. Learn how to read.

Goddamn sage.

Who the fuck would believe this obvious bullshit?
Tree huggers and journalists are fucking retarded.

jokes on them though, if the ocean floor broke all the water would go in the hollow earth

How would they know, doesn't the sea floor change shape all the time?

No, they retain the same mass, but mass to volume aka density changes as it undergoes a phase shift. The volume decreases as it melts. However this also means that the force exerted downwards via gravity would be the same due to how buoyancy works.

In actual fact melted glaciers and ice lowers the water level due to displacement of force into the ice having a greater effect than on water. eg: Place a weight on a piece of ice, the gravitational force offsets via ice being pushed down into the water rather than just the volume of the weight itself, thus it uses mass rather than volume as it retains buoyancy by the ice below it holding it up where normally it would just sink due to having a higher density than water.

If it gets hot, it's climate change. If it cools down, it's climate change. It's also climate change if it rains or snows, if it's sunny or cloudy, and whether it's windy or not. When there's a drought it's climate change. If it rains more than last year it's climate change. Climate change made you stub your toe on the ottoman in the living room. Climate change left a ring in your bathtub. Climate change keyed your car and cracked the windshield. Climate change farted in the elevator. Climate change is going to flood the US and Europe but somehow turn the Middle East into a more arid desert instead of flooding it. Climate change is the left's favorite boogeyman because they can blame literally anything on it, and of course the only way to stop it is to shut down all Western industry and tax whites 80% of their income while moving over all of Africa, India, Latin America, and the Muslim world and putting them on welfare for life.

How do people still believe this?
An object in water displaces its own weight. The mass is the same, it's not increasing and destroying the ocean.
Oy vey it's going to flood
Oy vey it's because its also sinking
Oy vey its global warming
Oy vey it's climate change.
This is after
Oy vey it's global cooling
And people follow it every time, even when always wrong. Now we have
A conveniently vague term. The climate always changed, originally we had larger insects, then an ice age, then the ice melted and we are here now, then a mini ice age where Londons river froze over.
It would be strange if the world stopped changing.

Talmudvision and Jewniversity.

What do they mean by this?

To play doubles advocate, all of the ice would be in the poles and having it melt and redistribute to the rest of the planet would increase the weight at those locations. Same weight different distribution. Presumably some ice is from land. This of course assumes that the ice is melting at the rate they claim and that the differential from land is enough to offset the decrease in volume from ice to water.

REMINDER
>"We must stop dumping water in the water." < You are here.

nice
This seems super complicated to work out because the ocean floor isn't a flat, uniform surface. There are deep trenches in the ocean that are under hundreds of times more pressure than a shoreline in Greenland, for instance. I imagine the depth of the ocean has a much more significant impact than the distribution of ice, but I'm a brainlet when it comes to physics so probably don't listen to me.

Note the click bait/buzzfeed-esque phrasing of the headline. This is nothing but "I fucking love science" types jacking themselves off.

They claiming that water is denser than all the rocks and minerals etc. under it? Hollow earf confirmed?

The mental gymnastics you have to endure these days to be a liberal.

Fucking pleb

Stay pleb.

The climate apocalypse is always decades or centuries away

The jews might try that.

Omg to all the retards who do not see the obvious fallacy's. First There is a total water content on this planet which can not be gained or lost, its a closed system. If it evaporates that does not mean the water is gone, lost to oblivion it means it just changed forms. Like wise if it sinks into the earth that does not mean it is gone it gives water to the land, the land becomes wetter by absorbing the water. Then evaporates into the atmosphere or held in the ground. Its not lost. Its used up by the next medium. It just changes forms into water droplets when it rises to a high enough altitude and density it turns into a droplet. It just changes forms, right remember those chemistry and physics classes. The loss of all the ice means more water. I would imagine that would be less heavy than when there is ice because solids are heavier than liquids in this case. Water like energy cannot be created nor destroyed because it is energy the molecules are just added to external systems or the external system gives it more particles.

It's funny watching early 00 documentaries, when it was global warming being the kike term.
Now it's climate change of course, because now everything can be blamed on it.
I'm wondering if Holla Forumscan blame everything on it as (((they))) already have to help with the accelerationism.

Fuck water is denser than ice in this case.

>It couldn't just be called climate same

What really fascinates me about judaism is how they are such conniving kikes that they come up with all these creative ways not to keep their part of the bargain with their own "g-d" who they are supposedly the chosen children of.

Amazing how Jews have their own sperate infrastructure from you in isn't it?

...

Who wants to go through and cut down those hazardous strings around city infrastructure?

So they do weigh the same? Ha thats what I thought all along, fuck you

...

You are completely wrong. Water can absolutely be lost. UV rays split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. Free hydrogen in the atmosphere is lost to space. This is not a problem because water within the earth's core is still flowing to the surface, and will continue to do so for several hundred million years.

Hydrogen is lost to space.

The weight of of something floating in water is doesn't affect whatever the water is in. If you have a water bridge, it only has to hold the weight of the water. No matter how big a boat you take through it, as long as it doesn't touch the bottom, it won't increase the weight the bridge has to support.

That's a very bigoted view of physics, shitlord.

the pushers just want their carbon tax money, the drones just want to feel smarter than other people

Lightning strikes also via electron cascade

I wonder (((who's))) behind all of this. How long until we're forced to pay half our yearly wages just to afford clean air and water?

Nukes.

What's next, the sky will turn green?

This climate alarmism has gone full retard. Now they're scrambling to fabricate excuses to why the climate hysteria from a decade ago hasn't remotely come close to coming true.
The climate cultists even said that global cooling is caused by global warming. Now the ocean is sinking.

...

Great point. Also reactor operations generate a lot of hydrogen.

1 ounce oxygen
half ounce hydrogen
shaken not stirred

But the point of no return if we don't enact a carbon tax is always tomorrow.

We constantly lose hydrogen and helium dumbass. Earth does not have strong enough gravitational pull to hold either element. So you can't just put the hydrogens and the oxygens back together, the hydrogens are wandering off through space.

Learn what space is.
Which isn’t happening. Oops.

That's only if the water is displaced outside of the container it is in. Like if you had a tub filled to the top and put a toy boat in it, excess water would spill over the edge until the boat was removed, leaving less water overall.
If you have a tub that's half filled, and added a toy boat, the total weight would be the water + the toy.

...

...

How do you manage to fuck up trying to update your facebook profile that badly?

Get the fuck out reddit.

Yeah, this is the principle. We already know that glaciers weigh down continents and their melting causes the crust to rise. I don't see a reason to doubt the premise here but of course it's spun into panic clickbait.

huh?
Ocean levels rise because ocean levels are sinking?
Can someone explain?

That was what I was getting at. Nukes aren't really dropped that much.

Aww, he's upset his primitive nog brain can't grasp grade school science.

quora.com/Why-are-gases-like-Hydrogen-and-helium-rarely-found-in-the-earths-atmosphere-whereas-heavier-gases-like-Nitrogen-and-Oxygen-found-in-abundance

I don't know. It's something like, since the oceans sunk a little it may have offset the rise from melting. This sounds like a good thing in their belief system but the point is torturing it into being able to say the magic phrase, it's worse than we thought.

They are trying to claim there is so much more water that the bowl got bigger.

Ah ffs when did my thread ID change…

Twice? Jesus christ this proxy is gay sometimes. At least that FIX POL faggot has stopped getting me b&. The cunt got all my proxy nodes banned.

They also contaminate much of the water they use with neutron radiation and the diluted tritium discharged and the rest isn't any better. I fucking hate nuke cucks, they are the climate nigger shills of power generation

But I thought the entire "bad" part of sea levels rising was that they actually rose with respect to the point of reference surface level and how they'd start to overflow onto the surface displacing usable land. If that's not the case why should I give a fuck?

Also doesn't this give the fishies more usable ocean displacing the ratio of polluted water?

Same bullshit as global warming is causing global cooling. Climate alarmism is a massive fraud and they are trying to find excuses to tell the cattle who were 100% on board with it from the early 2000's.

Steam power, now with irradiated water and a witch's cauldron.

Also where is the newly compressed mass displaced to? The only way for this to work would mean that it raises dry land even higher above sea level thus making the "muh sea level rising" complaint even more useless.
WHY DOES NOTHING ADD UP HERE?

Kek, it's such basic bitch shit.

I thought the Earth was flat?

Neocon big oil sand-jew enabler detected. Have some scientific documented evidence cockfag.

...

Where does the compressed mass go when you fill a measuring cup with brown sugar and then push down on it? Fucking idiot. That’s what COMPRESSION means.

...

holy shit just kill yourself now

>>>/gaschamber/

So the density of the Earth is going up? Why is gravity the same then?

Pretty obvious this is so they can still claim "muh climate change" regardless of whether the ocean rises, sinks, or stays the same .

Exactly what they did with "muh global warming". When charts didn't show warming they redefined it as being "climate change" so literally any weather and temperatures support their theory.

Holy fucking god, kill yourself you subhuman retard.

It's such a shame the world ended during the Eocene Optimum when there was barely any ice in the world at all.

There are way too many variables. You could play what iff scenarios to give yourself the talking point you want all day. It is going to be so much worse later because we aren't seeing it now because the bowl is getting bigger, etc. etc. the goal posts will continue to be moved. Next when sea levels actually do rise as they have for millions of years they will say it is because the earth has stopped compressing then the fucks in another few eons will claim all the water is disappearing because of global cooling etc. etc.

this. the whole "global warming/climatechange/heavyoceans" tripe is pseudo science and jewry at this point.

while cleverly playing directly into the god-complex of their followers by making them sincerely believe that any opposition to their schizophrenic hysteria is "going to end the planet"

...

Bill Nye will defend this.

No.
There are two options, both of which you said are wrong, and I'm the subhuman retard? Are (((you))) sure it isn't (((you)))?

The carbon cycle actually relies on the sodium bicarbonate precipitate at the bottom to pushed back into the mantle via a process called subduction. I'm not saying erosion wouldn't or couldn't occur in the ocean… just that it wouldn't really be of any concern to us on land.

Correction: liquid is the state of highest density for water molecules. Also you can't compress water.

so the water level rose like we've been discussing for over a decade, and these retards think the bottom is sinking?

burn some shit, youve just created some water. incomplete combustion produces small amounts of water

Today I paid my electricity bill it included £90 climate change levy. That's right a (((levy))). I have absolutely no idea who that goes to.

This is why they changed it from global warming to climate change a few years ago. Because they'd sound even more retarded blaming the coldest New Years in history on global warming.

Jesus Christ, which EU-occupied shithole do you live in?

Climategate told us all that we needed to know about this massive hoax. Real problems are hidden, fake ones made up to gain more control. "Hide The Decline!" (in temperatures)

Wrong. Earth gains water from space annually, you fucking dumbshit. It comes in on meteors.

Jews’ pockets.

It is a mystery.

...

the shit with leftism is they often do have one or two points which arent entirely incorrect. A drastic increase in water would absolutely affect the spin of the earth in large ways. That of course assumes several things to be correct 1) the earths sea water levels arent already way the fuck up there 2) we arent over due for and currently transitioning into an ice age, which will fix all of that shit with its purifying cold and 3) the kikes havent woven a web of deceit so vast that the more truth you find the more lies come into play.

nuh uh ur just a racist trump supporter who cant into science. cant you see that were collapsing under the weight of our own water?

This is what climatards actually believe.

...

It goes to a Levite.

£

look at it. It has the one end you insert into anus and then the other end is a inserted into peehole so that if you even think about getting hard while haseem fucks your wife it hurts more.

Theres only one country that it could be.

5 hours in photoshop

It's like Al Gore when he released his nauseatingly titled documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth".

It's always, "Well we were just off by a few years. It's still happening!". I'm not sure what's more taboo for people who consider themselves intellectuals: to be called a racist or to not toe the line on the climate change narrative.

climate change doesn't real but can we still stop the chinamen and street shitters from making literal rivers of trash

i know well established senior scientists who more or less had their careers ruined and have been blacklisted because of not toeing the line on the climate change narrative. its a fucking cult

This is fucking retarded sounds like it was written by somone from the fucking kemit community

...

...

inb4 they start blaming every earthquake on climate change.

the glaciers in question are on land, dipshit, not in the ocean.

this
stop it with the oil garbage. for what the US spent in TWO MONTHS in Iraq, it could have bought enough solar panels to give every american free electricity at home for ~20 years. I know the numbers are fucky, but the denialism-warmingism dichotomy is a jew trick. we need investment in new technologies to stay competitive, and wars for oil a shit

...

this is how stupid you are

Wars for isreal and rothchild petrodollar, there is enough oil in texas for 300 years

cnn.com/2016/11/17/us/midland-texas-mammoth-oil-discovery/index.html

I'm honestly very done with this subject, and I think everyone, to the normalfags, EPIC SCIENCEfags and SJWs are sick of it too tbh.

...

I think the point of the oil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about denying Russia in particular of oil and other resources while at the same time encircling them with anti-missile defenses so that Russia's nuclear and missile capabilities would be neutered significantly enough to not be able to retaliate if/when the nukes start raining on the Steppes.

Strategically it's pretty smart to keep your own resources unused when you don't need them. If the oil somehow runs out everywhere else, suddenly you're the unipolar world power again.

Glaciers are on land, mantle subduction is a thing. However the basic premise of the article is indeed bullshit alarmism to try and excuse yet another prediction failure. AFAIK the climate models have never got a statistically significant claim right which is pretty funny, you'd think it would happen occasionally just by random chance.

Even if there wasn't massive (((political))) bias, climate science is fundamentally flawed since we don't have a second earth to act as a control, and even if we did the billions of randomly fluctuating variables would make meaningful comparison very difficult. The propaganda in high school is that Venus is our second earth and oy vey look how hot it is, but other than being closer to the sun its atmosphere is 96 PERCENT CO2, versus 0.0447 PERCENT currently for earth! (This difference is so ridiculous that it's expressed as 447 PPM [parts per million] instead, oh no goyim look 447 is a big number.) The idea that these 2 situations are even remotely comparable and that we should be scared about the "record high" level of a trace gas is absurd on its face, even before you get into major problems in the data like the evidence that CO2 spikes happen after warming rather than before.

Lmao. Brb icecaps melt. Brb that weight is added to oceans. Brb the weight of the icecaps is not subtracted from oceans.

But who was thermodynamics?

pretty fucking common knowledge that a shit ton of mass will force the tectonic plates downward.
look at antarctica, alot of it's land is under sea level (as in the land below all the ice), if all the ice melted it would literally rise up though.

Liberals would stop allowing people to clean up brush in order to prevent fires in order to make a political statement.

Liberals stopped people from cleaning up the brush in Australia, which led to a ton of fires which liberals blamed on global warming.

No way, Climate Change is a fucking eschatologically-focused religion to Guardianistas and cosmopolitan lefties. They are worse than Evangelicucks, this isn't going away any time soon.

(Heiled)
It's only a matter of time before they actually say that, and pretend it's perfectly normal. The narrative has already gone from certain apocalyptic cooling to certain apocalyptic warming to the purposefully vague "change", so it will be no sillier to go back to certain apocalyptic cooling again.

...

It's funny how little of a clue we have about our environment. We can't even make a accurate prediction on which direction we're getting fucked.

Which tells me we'll possibly get fucked at any moment because jewish science is acting as a smokescreen for regular science

Or it means you don't know the numerous problems plaguing the earth such as pesticides, fungicides, bacteriacides, and narrow spectrum fertilizers (causing explosions of a limited number of bacteria, fungi, pests in localized regions). You don't know heavy metal poisoning in our farms and reserve water. And you trust shitty regulation organizations like EPA that are single lines on a cost profit sheet for any number of global corporations.

Meh, basic shapes in spirals look good and there's only so many of them, plus Unilever have had a version of that logo since 1998. I'd need more evidence before calling this one a cohencidence.

I bet you also think you aren't a faggot. Well you are, and it isn't.

Why did you put Imperial Blyini Kyt in a Reich uniform? I demand you delete and or change this image, sir.

Afghanistan is not an oil rich nation. It is however rich in opium production.

There is no possible way they could have measured the depth of the sea with enough precision to detect a 0.004 inch change in the average depth over the entire fucking planet. Jesus fuck.

thx for further logic that leftists are diseased mental midgets

It's all computer simulations. Never mind that most simulation algorithms were created for the ease of validating gathered empirical data without committing further resources to repeat experiments or high cost studies and that even their creators admit that computer simulations should never be used as a predictive tool especially in fields that we have never predicted anything in.

1 meter every 10k.
1 kilometer every 10m.

LOL!

They're getting hilariously desperate now that nothing is changing as per their warnings said it would. Can't wait for 2020 when all their models collapse and people finally see this scam for what it is.

Nah, they'll just say they uncovered data that was impossible to detect back in the 90s and claim we were wrong and it was going to be so much worse, but down the line in the future.

interesting, somehow I never thought of that.
if a ship where to be heavier than the bridge can support, it would be so heavy that it sinks to the bottom of the bridge?
that is, assuming that the bridge works and supports the water that the ship is being placed at

You cannot even measure this massive ammount of terrain to that degree.
What we're seeing here is, the ocean levels have not risen as predicted by global warming enthusiasts, so they are introducing a variable to the equation that can be used to force the predictions to seem fulfilled.

Just more nonsense, and it will only serve to keep their sheep in the pen, essentially giving the believers an excuse to believe, in the face of solid evidence to the contrary.

It's the equivalent of telling a religious follower that god works in mysterious ways, when he asks why god let his entire family die in a car crash. Only the priests of global warming are being even more dishonest.

Eroding to where?
Use your god-given friggin' brain.

I bet someone did it in a computer model. That's all "climate science" is. Fucking around with computer models, and they try very hard not to advertise that fact. They make a simulation of "the planet" and run it and draw conclusions off the simulation they made. Some fucker was probably looking at all the knobs on his model and went "hey sea floor level, yeah, let me tweak that one".

I had a libtard tell me the other day that the sky is not blue.
True story, I shit you not.

Being one of the "motherfuckers with models" I can say it's a lot more then that. First, the modelers need to sell their useless modeling kits, it's good for da buisness if people are hyped over models and predictions of your respective modeling program field. On second hand, the buyer can use your softwares predictions to his PERSONAL benefit, like say, pumping money into projects he wants(has interest in) using yuor programdata. And when shit hits the fan and the projects and spending starts to seem like just a scam they/we can invent legitimate excuses to avoid financial responsibility.

Brainlets.

In eastern Europe the sky is gray. But that is mostly due to depression and soviet-realism lingering in culture.

Wait a minute. I'm no hydraulics engineer but I'm pretty sure that a falling ocean floor because of too much water would cause the continents to rise even faster.

THIS
Was my first thought when I read the OP
I have to go all the way back to Dr Gill and his Fluid Mechanics course I took in college.
When we were covering the chapter on modeling he gave us the basics and in no uncertain terms told us not everything was capable of being modeled.
Pic related you cannot model a house those are "actuals" not models.
So what proof am I given that we can actually model the weather?
I wish Dr Gill was still around.

I have never read such unscientific piece of shit of a "research". Who wrote that paper, gender studies graduates? It reminds me of the fucking holocaust: as the truth becomes more and more apparent, the jews keep inventing more absurd and unbelievable stories about how true the holocaust was.

Well. They aren't technically wrong. Air is colorless but it scatters blue light so we percieve the whole atmosphere as blue.

You forgot to mention it also receives 1.83 times as much solar irradiance and the atmosphere is 92 times denser, in addition to being 96% CO2.

Despite all that it's only 2.5 times hotter than earth on a scale from absolute zero.

Colors are what your eyes perceive, it doesn't matter what other components the spectrum in question may have, it does not matter why your eyes are perceiving "blue."

Everybody looks at it, everybody has agreed the name of the perception is "blue." Only a libtard would try to muddle the facts and deny it, just to win an argument.

The sky is blue.

Now, let's argue that the sea is not above that sky…no doubt some libtarded moron will point out that there are other seas on other planets.

But the reality is, the sea is not above the sky.

Climate changes, user, it’s part of nature. However, chinks and poo-in-loos do not, they must be eradicated in order for trash and poo to be removed from the streets

Kill yourself. We’ll use whatever fuel we want to use.
Solar panels are fucking worthless if there are clouds, you goddamn dipshit. They’re also worthless for HALF OF EVERY FUCKING DAY, while you can run coal and natural gas 24/7. The only “renewable” energy is nuclear, period.
Not even remotely true.
So thorium nuclear reactors. Nothing else actually works or is good for the environment. You know nothing about how those chinks produce those solar panels.

If you’re this naive, why are you here?

Not a complete list of excuses, any I missed? The next excuse will be their models are wrong because of the onsetting ice age - but it's still a danger we need to tackle!

...

Dumb question, but wouldn't those elements remain in earth's gravitational field, just so far "up" that whatever "layer" they're found in isn't considered part of our atmosphere? AFAIK, Hydrogen and Helium only appear to "escape" our atmosphere because their light weight makes them buoyant in any other gas. That doesn't mean they are somehow unaffected by gravity, just that the altitude at which they reach equilibrium is so high that they are unaccessible and their pressure is so low as to be nonexistent.

Or maybe I'm mistaken and their equilibrium altitude is so far out in earth's gravity well that they are easily stripped away by solar winds, comets, etc.

Complete the system of German idealism?

Solar radiation energizes them out of the atmosphere.

Batteries, how do they work?

What's happening to the sediment? Is it just compressing?

They work very fucking poorly. A lot of recycling, a lot of actual pollution to deal with. Heavy. They're not the silver bullet of energy storage, not even close.
To store energy chemically consider biofuels particularly those produced by algae with reasonably high yields for a given production area. A far better alternative energy source for vehicles than electricity from batteries.
Hydrogen storage is very problematic when trying to brute force it with pressure, metal hydrides, however, could potentially be used as a safe alternative to operate fuel cells and hydrogen combustion engines.
Another storage option is using excess energy to run pumps and elevate water to massive tanks. When necessary let gravity do its work over turbines like in any regular hydroelectric plant.
With solar panels it's questionable if they are clean enough to manufacture and effective enough in operation to use them as anything more than just an auxiliary power source. Same with wind turbines which additionally require a lot of maintenance same as anything else with moving parts but produce a lot less energy per turbine compared to hydro or anything steam operated.

Only an idiot would argue against genuine science and then strawman the fuck out of it.

...

...

Yes and without storage you end up having zero energy at night from your solar panels. There will always be some excess energy simply because production is mostly at a constant rate whereas consumption has a lot of high and low peaks. Even a quarter of the excess during lows is a lot more than nothing.

The production of solar panels produces a ton of toxic waste, and solar panels, last I checked are not even close to 70% effective in conversion of radiant energy to electricity and that drops off dramatically after a few years, requiring a replacement in a very short span of time. Wind turbines are among the worst in terms of effectiveness because of having to dump power back into them when wind speed isn't strong enough to keep them going, then immense damage to the ecosystem by fucking up migratory birds, then having to repair the turbines when the birds damage the blades, then keeping them well lubricated with petroleum product anyway, it's the worst resource:wattage ratio.
Nuclear continues to have the best resource:wattage ratio, with decades old infrastructure.
One of the hidden dangers of solar is sinewave regulation, solar needs a sinewave regulator to keep from polluting the grid and damaging electronics, something kids don't learn about when their science teacher has them build their little solar powered paper cars.

Solar works by converting radiant energy, they continue to operate at night but their gain is negligible because of their poor conversion rate, but even moonlight will somewhat be converted.

How about we outjew the Jew and poison the well of climate change proponents? We can point out that on a globe earth, glaciers melting don't pose a threat, but that there is a model in which melting ice at our South Pole could cause massive destruction? We convince them that maybe the scientists know something we don't…

I'm having trouble finding a flaw with this plan.

This can't be real. It's like someone dialed up the "stupidity quotient" in our simulation.

That's a beautiful way to put it.
What's more terrifying than living in a simulation?
Living in a simulation run by the equivalent of modern leftitst professors that are desperately trying to get the results that they want

And they are pretending tectonic plates are doing nothing in the meantime. The nerve of these faggots.

When water freezes, it increases its volume by about 9%. About 90% of an iceberg is submerged (different sources differ on both of these numbers, but agree that they are around 9% and 90% give or take a percent or two). That means that if we take 100 litres of water and freeze it, we get 109 cubic decimetres. 98.1 of those cubic decimetres are underwater, displacing 98.1 litres of water. Upon melting it, we will get 100 litres back, meaning the water level will be higher by about 2% of the melted ice's total volume. A medium-to-large iceberg (let's say 45x45x122 metres) would thus add about 4 447 000 "extra" litres to the ocean.

There's 332 519 000 cubic miles of water on the planet, of which 97% is in the ocean, so 322 543 430 cubic miles. That's 1.38599965 × 10^21 litres of it. Our hypothetical, relatively big iceberg just increased the total mass of the ocean by 0.0000000000001066892%

CS major here. You CAN simulate anything you want; that's easy. The biggest obstacle is the verification stage where you prove that what you have there actually reflects the reality, and isn't actually just a pile of over-simplified bullshit that works with assumptions and doesn't take into account half the things it needs to. For example, you could model and simulate a ball being launched, calculating the force and all. Then you'd see the ball flew into infinity and go "Oh, I forgot to take gravity into account" so you change the model and try again. This time the ball does fall down eventually, but it's still strangely far so you go "Oh, I forgot to add friction!" So you change the model again. This time the results look like they could sorta maybe be correct so you go and pitch it, and the person buying it from you is just some dumb faggot who has no idea about any of this and just wants a magic box that helps him play golf or something, so he buys it from you and you fuck off, and he has fun playing with the numbers and calculating the optimal force and angle, then goes on the course… and the fucking ball flies somewhere else entirely because you forgot to include wind in your simulation (among other shit).

This was about a fucking ball, and these fucks are trying to model the weather system, and again, guess what, they have no way to verify that what they're spewing is actually correct. So now they're like that man with golf ball, having taken a swing and watching as the ball veers off-course, getting increasingly nervous about your earlier investment into the "magic box".

Kek.

2 hour reply
(checked)
Lots of double 0s

Bottom line is this climate change (climate is alwsys changing) fearmongering is kike kikery as usual. God I hate kikes.

GAS THE KIKES, RACE WAR NOW

Wow it's almost like the earth goes through cycles of climate change over long periods of time. Shiggy diggy

All of you skeptic shitlords need to realize that water is WARMER than ICE. That means that it is at a higher ENERGY LEVEL so each molecule of H2O is slightly heavier :^)

There's that medieval map about Antarctica apparently WITHOUT the ice.

The solution is more carbon to suck the ocean floor back up via convection, like a rising loaf of bread, but liberals are too dumb to realize it. Check 'em.

Also the mechanism for "sinking" or "rising" sea beds are usually the spreading rate and thus temperature of the rocked produced atoceanic ridges(narrow slow spreading center with narrow zone of warm crust) and rises(fast spreading center with broad zone of warm crust). If they are measuring a collective decrease in the elevation of the seafloor that means we are seeing a slowing of spreading or if this is a continental shelf rather than the mafic oceanic crust which is sinking it might be due to loading of the continental shelf with sediment which will depress the crust until it reaches istostoctacy with the material beneath it.

However as geologist I've seen precisely zero evidence for either of these mechanisms. Rather I suspect that this is utter bullshit as they desperately grasp at straws to explain why the changes in temperature are more mild and the subsequent change in eustatic sea level is slower than their bullshit non-predictive models say it should be, "uh well yeah our models are shit and based on little applicable data and most geologists and climatologists actually don't agree with our models but secretly they were right because really the sinking ocean floor is just hiding the massive rise in sea level. Don't ask how this is possible LISTEN AND BELIEVE GOY."

Correct rebuttal to my statement user.
But way back in the last century when I studied with Dr Gill we touched on actual physical shit and basically was could you get meaningful measurements that you could scale up to full size.
Dr Gill was correct on what he told us given what we were discussing
I do understand the concept of mathematical modeling but I dont understand how you can neglect the suns output take a 100 years of data on a tiny fraction of the planet and conflate that to an increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere.

I did a chemistry term paper on water, water will compress 4/100's of 1% by volume probably at 1000PSI. Water is the only substance of comparable density and viscosity that expands when it freezes, 10% by volume. Of the known GREEN HOUSE GASES water is responsible for 90% of the earths ability to retain the suns heat, other wise we would be an ice bound rock. The only substances that have a higher specific heat than water are helium and hydrogen gas.

...

Yes, you can. It just takes a large amount of pressure to get a small change in density.

...

=ITT=
A bunch of stupid fucking niggers who can't into basic science. Here is a basic example. 100 grams of water weighs 100 grams, no matter what physical state it exists in. 100g of ice = 100g water = 100g steam. Their densities are different, but water does NOT change weight by changing states. Holy fuck, good troll thread. you made me reply/10

bumping with somewhat related

>(((firefox)))
>(((pocket))) recommends new climate alarmist propaganda
Clearly every natural event is global warming's fault.