Driver to drive?

[Tim Wescott]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about 3/4
full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the container
on a table and mark the side of it where the water level appears. Make
sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away from any ice
contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say? What
is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water in
the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans? When
that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of the
oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions Al
Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)

Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.
* Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Martin Brown]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler.
Fill it about 3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
from any ice contact with the wall.
Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Because "dittohead science" is a pack of lies.

Your experiment is fundamentally flawed.

The sea is 3.5% salt dissloved in water. The displacement of ice is less
than the volume it will occupy as liquid water.

It will rise slightly. Floating sea ice is *pure* water frozen and
displaces its own *WEIGHT* of the denser cold brine. When the ice melts
and mixes with a typically 3.5% total dissovled solids sea water at 0C.
The increase in the total volume of the water ice when melted and mixed
with salty *sea* water in the oceans is about 3%.

Part of the rise in sea level comes from expansion of the water that is
already in the oceans as it warms up.

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

These numbers are standard high school calculations. It was fun to see
how little of the UK would be above sealevel if the entire polar cap ice
was melted. Never occurred to me or anyone else at the time that the
practical implications of this calculation might one day be important.

You don't need to be all that accurate to get an answer good to the
nearest 10m which is plenty good enough for planning purposes. The
number is somewhere between 60-70m depending on whether you include the
Greenland ice sheet and minor glaciers around the world.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)

Amazing just quite how wilfully ignorant you are.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about 3/4
full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the container
on a table and mark the side of it where the water level appears. Make
sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away from any ice
contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say? What
is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water in
the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans? When
that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of the
oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions Al
Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)


Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.
* Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...

Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no
Slowman "calculations" ;-)

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?

Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".

Then let's talk

If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
give a wet fart ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:11 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about
3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
from any ice contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)


Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_. *
Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...

Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no Slowman
"calculations" ;-)

Prove to me that you're not a liar or a credulous boob, first ;-), ;-)
and again ;-).

What is it about conservatives that you advance the most ridiculous
arguments then start loudly insisting that they be disproven by the most
circuitous methods possible?

No. You introduced the thread to this group, _you_ prove it or you back
down. Or consider your status as (at best) a credulous dupe to be proven.

Start with Greenland and the Antarctic, and probably half of Canada and
Siberia.

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without me
having to pull out your finger nails ?

Sure.

But _I_ assume you'll agree that you have a vested financial interest in
living high on the hog until you die of old age, long before any long-
term problems with current energy policies show up?

Just so we can gauge any of your responses?

Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".

As I pointed out, that's your job.

Then let's talk

If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
give a wet fart ?

Ah. So if a mountain lion only eats your neighbors you don't give a fat
rat's ass?

That's good to know, Jim.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:08 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about
3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
from any ice contact with the wall.
Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Because "dittohead science" is a pack of lies.

Your experiment is fundamentally flawed.

The sea is 3.5% salt dissloved in water. The displacement of ice is less
than the volume it will occupy as liquid water.

It will rise slightly. Floating sea ice is *pure* water frozen and
displaces its own *WEIGHT* of the denser cold brine. When the ice melts
and mixes with a typically 3.5% total dissovled solids sea water at 0C.
The increase in the total volume of the water ice when melted and mixed
with salty *sea* water in the oceans is about 3%.

Part of the rise in sea level comes from expansion of the water that is
already in the oceans as it warms up.

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

These numbers are standard high school calculations. It was fun to see
how little of the UK would be above sealevel if the entire polar cap ice
was melted. Never occurred to me or anyone else at the time that the
practical implications of this calculation might one day be important.

You don't need to be all that accurate to get an answer good to the
nearest 10m which is plenty good enough for planning purposes. The
number is somewhere between 60-70m depending on whether you include the
Greenland ice sheet and minor glaciers around the world.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)

Amazing just quite how wilfully ignorant you are.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Not that there isn't a lot of willful ignorance on the left.

Biofuel, indeed.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Ouroboros Rex]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it
about 3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the
container overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a
cover over the container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will
do. Place the container on a table and mark the side of it where
the water level appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of
the meniscus away from any ice contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you
say? What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the
relative proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of
liquid water in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area
of the oceans? When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over
the surface area of the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot
answer these questions Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)


Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.
* Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...

Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no
Slowman "calculations" ;-)

It's OK, we'll stick with the 100% proven trends. You see, we have the
photos, bone-stupid demands for unneeded data by well known liars
notwithstanding. lol

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html

http://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/Glacier/glacier_retreat.htm

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?

Why, since it's not? lol

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:44:35 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:11 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about
3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
from any ice contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)


Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_. *
Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...

Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no Slowman
"calculations" ;-)

Prove to me that you're not a liar or a credulous boob, first ;-), ;-)
and again ;-).

What is it about conservatives that you advance the most ridiculous
arguments then start loudly insisting that they be disproven by the most
circuitous methods possible?

No. You introduced the thread to this group, _you_ prove it or you back
down. Or consider your status as (at best) a credulous dupe to be proven.

Start with Greenland and the Antarctic, and probably half of Canada and
Siberia.

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without me
having to pull out your finger nails ?

Sure.

But _I_ assume you'll agree that you have a vested financial interest in
living high on the hog until you die of old age, long before any long-
term problems with current energy policies show up?

Just so we can gauge any of your responses?

Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".

As I pointed out, that's your job.

Then let's talk

If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
give a wet fart ?

Ah. So if a mountain lion only eats your neighbors you don't give a fat
rat's ass?

That's good to know, Jim.

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

 

[Ouroboros Rex]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:44:35 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:11 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott
tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it
about 3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the
container overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a
cover over the container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will
do. Place the container on a table and mark the side of it where
the water level appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part
of the meniscus away from any ice contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you
say? What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is
the relative proportion of that volume of ice to the total
volume of liquid water in the oceans? What is the precise total
surface area of the oceans? When that 'precise' volume of ice is
spread over the surface area of the oceans how thick will it be?
If you cannot answer these questions Al Gore, you cannot predict
sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)


Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_. *
Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...

Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no
Slowman "calculations" ;-)

Prove to me that you're not a liar or a credulous boob, first ;-),
;-) and again ;-).

What is it about conservatives that you advance the most ridiculous
arguments then start loudly insisting that they be disproven by the
most circuitous methods possible?

No. You introduced the thread to this group, _you_ prove it or you
back down. Or consider your status as (at best) a credulous dupe to
be proven.

Start with Greenland and the Antarctic, and probably half of Canada
and Siberia.

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral
without me having to pull out your finger nails ?

Sure.

But _I_ assume you'll agree that you have a vested financial
interest in living high on the hog until you die of old age, long
before any long- term problems with current energy policies show up?

Just so we can gauge any of your responses?

Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and
that land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".

As I pointed out, that's your job.

Then let's talk

If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would
anyone give a wet fart ?

Ah. So if a mountain lion only eats your neighbors you don't give a
fat rat's ass?

That's good to know, Jim.

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

Kinda like yours! lol

 

[Martin Brown]

Tim Wescott wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about 3/4
full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the container
on a table and mark the side of it where the water level appears. Make
sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away from any ice
contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say? What
is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water in
the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans? When
that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of the
oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions Al
Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.
You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)


Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.
* Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.

And fails to allow for the fact that the Oceans are saltwater. The
expansion on melting because of the pure water vs saltwater density
difference is only small but it is not zero.

* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Brain dead "Dittohead Science" from the Rush Limbaugh school of physics.
They are all pathological liars.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

He is a red necked fuckwit of the worst possible sort.
Not stupid but wilfully ignorant of the science and proud of it.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Nobody]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Ambiguous question.

Are you asking about a correlation or a causal relationship?

There's likely to be a correlation: if sea temperatures increase, the sea
will expand (most seawater is above 4 deg C, at which water has its
maximum density), resulting in sea levels rising. An increase in
temperature would also be expected to melt sea ice.

Also, the "polar caps" aren't comprised exlusively of floating ice.
There's a lot of ice resting on land (Antarctica, Greenland, Canada and
Russia) which would run off into the sea if it melted. This is small beans
compared to thermal expansion, though.

 

[ian field]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:27rlg51de9o3l2avr05vm77en7fot7pp7v@4ax.com...

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:44:35 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:11 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about
3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
from any ice contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)


Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_. *
Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...

Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no Slowman
"calculations" ;-)

Prove to me that you're not a liar or a credulous boob, first ;-), ;-)
and again ;-).

What is it about conservatives that you advance the most ridiculous
arguments then start loudly insisting that they be disproven by the most
circuitous methods possible?

No. You introduced the thread to this group, _you_ prove it or you back
down. Or consider your status as (at best) a credulous dupe to be proven.

Start with Greenland and the Antarctic, and probably half of Canada and
Siberia.

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without me
having to pull out your finger nails ?

Sure.

But _I_ assume you'll agree that you have a vested financial interest in
living high on the hog until you die of old age, long before any long-
term problems with current energy policies show up?

Just so we can gauge any of your responses?

Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".

As I pointed out, that's your job.

Then let's talk

If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
give a wet fart ?

Ah. So if a mountain lion only eats your neighbors you don't give a fat
rat's ass?

That's good to know, Jim.

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

For the past couple of days its been in the UK news that hackers have broken
into the servers at a science institute that's funded on the global warming
meal ticket.

Much of the info has been posted on the web and apparently its so revealing
that no one's taking much notice of the banking and other personal details
liberated at the same time.

 

[George Herold]

On Nov 23, 1:08 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid
wrote:





Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler.
Fill it about 3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
from any ice contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll play Jim,

Here's the Greenland ice sheet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

2.85 X10^6 km^3. If it all melts I calculate about 7.5m of sea level
rise.
(radius of earth is about 6.37 X 10^3 km.)
and here's the Antarctic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
30 X10^6 km^3. Of course some of that is in the ocean already. Not
sure how much... but call it half and you've still got 15 X10^6 km^3.
Call if five times what is on Greenland and that gives an additional
37.5 m of rise... Grand total 45m.

George H.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:05:36 -0800, Fred Abse wrote:

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:47:23 -0600, krw wrote:

snip

AH, so you are an expert of AC/DC . how's the swinging these days?

You two are a perfect pair.

At least I never get to see Proteus's posts, except as quotes. Google gets
filtered out here. I pray that he'll never get a proper news service.

From Wikipedia:
"Proteus is a bacterial genus within the medically important group of
Enterobacteriaceae. Species most commonly associated with clinical disease
are Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris and Proteus penneri. Proteus
species are notorious in medical microbiological laboratories because of
their rapid swarming growth on commonly used agar plates."

;-)

Don't forget amoeba proteus:
http://www.google.com/search?q=amoeba+proteus
http://www.google.com/search?q=amoebic+dysentery

Cheers!
Rich

 

[richard]

richard wrote:

http://fotorocket.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/from-down-home-to-beijing-obama-gives-nc-made-go-board-to-chinese-president-hu/


(shows the construction of this gift including the use of a laser cutter
to mark the lines)

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:44:35 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:11 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:45 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?

Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about
3/4 full with tap water.

Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the
container overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a
cover over the container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do.
Place the container on a table and mark the side of it where the
water level appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the
meniscus away from any ice contact with the wall.

Let the ice melt.

Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.

Tell me again why sea level will rise?

Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the
relative proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of
liquid water in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area
of the oceans? When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the
surface area of the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot
answer these questions Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)


Excellent science!

* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_. *
Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.

Pseudo science at it's best.

Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.

I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...

Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no
Slowman "calculations" ;-)

Prove to me that you're not a liar or a credulous boob, first ;-), ;-)
and again ;-).

What is it about conservatives that you advance the most ridiculous
arguments then start loudly insisting that they be disproven by the most
circuitous methods possible?

No. You introduced the thread to this group, _you_ prove it or you back
down. Or consider your status as (at best) a credulous dupe to be
proven.

Start with Greenland and the Antarctic, and probably half of Canada and
Siberia.

I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?

Sure.

But _I_ assume you'll agree that you have a vested financial interest in
living high on the hog until you die of old age, long before any long-
term problems with current energy policies show up?

Just so we can gauge any of your responses?

Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".

As I pointed out, that's your job.

Then let's talk

If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
give a wet fart ?

Ah. So if a mountain lion only eats your neighbors you don't give a fat
rat's ass?

That's good to know, Jim.

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

As anticipated... an evasion.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

As anticipated... an evasion.

GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making
the national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked
and exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

GO GREEN!
Recycle Congress
In 2010

 

[Tim Wescott]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:20:15 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

As anticipated... an evasion.

GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making the
national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked and
exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Changing the subject is also an evasion. You were discussing an
'experiment' with ice, water, and a bunch of false premises. If you
wanted to make the point that AGW isn't real because some dipshits were
faking their science, then that's the point you would have made. Instead
you were forwarding someone's faked science and standing behind it right
up until the moment that you got pushed a bit hard. Then you fall on the
ground kicking and screaming like a two year old.

If you really thing that faked science is so f***ing bad, why were _you_
doing it? And if you want to be seen as smart, why were you doing so
_poorly_? All you've done is show that you're OK with faked science, as
long as it's faked to benefit _you_.

You're an _engineer_ for crying out loud! Yet whenever a subject comes
up that calls for knee-jerk politics you don't think, instead your legs
start spasming. What's with that? It's just a good thing for your
clients that chip design has nothing to do with politics.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:26:52 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:20:15 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)

As anticipated... an evasion.

GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making the
national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked and
exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Changing the subject is also an evasion. You were discussing an
'experiment' with ice, water, and a bunch of false premises. If you
wanted to make the point that AGW isn't real because some dipshits were
faking their science, then that's the point you would have made. Instead
you were forwarding someone's faked science and standing behind it right
up until the moment that you got pushed a bit hard. Then you fall on the
ground kicking and screaming like a two year old.

If you really thing that faked science is so f***ing bad, why were _you_
doing it? And if you want to be seen as smart, why were you doing so
_poorly_? All you've done is show that you're OK with faked science, as
long as it's faked to benefit _you_.

You're an _engineer_ for crying out loud! Yet whenever a subject comes
up that calls for knee-jerk politics you don't think, instead your legs
start spasming. What's with that? It's just a good thing for your
clients that chip design has nothing to do with politics.

Show me the volume of ice you claim is going to melt and flood the
world. Otherwise STFU. Go build an ark or something. What an
annoying bastard.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

 

[Geoff]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:08 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Part of the rise in sea level comes from expansion of the water that is
already in the oceans as it warms up.

Interesting point. You mean the surface water, of course, since only
the first 50 meters or so is very warm or sees enough light to get
warmed by the sun. The other 3000 meters of depth are closer to -2 or
-3 C except where thermal vents heat it to 600 C at the deep ocean
trenches.

 

[Geoff]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)

Oopsie!