lawrocket

Members
  • Content

    22,817
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Other
    Large
  • Reserve Canopy Other
    Docile one!
  • AAD
    Cypres 2

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    'Snore, and will stay 'Snore
  • License
    Student
  • Number of Jumps
    18
  • Years in Sport
    20

Ratings and Rigging

  • Pro Rating
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Moo skies, Lisa. We were better with you..
  2. Overall there is stasis. Obviously, the trends on the Peninsula also affect the balance. But there are factors other than AGW at work. Attached is an image showing satellite altimetry on top and gravitometry on the bottom. If it was a global climate thing, one would expect there to be more uniformity of results. There is not real pattern, though. It looks a bit jumbled. But just the image is an indication of the subtlety. Mass gain and loss is all over the place. Antarctica is losing mass. This is not incorrect. Antarctica is gaining ice mass. Also not incorrect. It's like saying North America is experiencing a drought. The evidence is all over the place. It's the nice part about it. There is evidence to support the theory that you artfully described. And evidence contrary. It's a lot of personal perception, which is great so long as there is some sound reasoning behind it. But pigeonholing is the easiest way to miss something. I predicate your mind on this and the education you provide. My wife is hotter than your wife.
  3. 100% agree with Wendy. I agree, as well. Unfortunately, BLM has been perverted on all sides. If you think black lives matter means nothing else matters, then the problem is with you. My kids matter. It doesn't mean my wife doesn't matter. And isn't it kind of ironic that the white racists and black racists read blacklivesmatter to be the same message? My wife is hotter than your wife.
  4. Regarding point 1 - there is a crucial thing that it being missed in this discussion. Glacier life and stability is determined by two factors: (1) accretion; and (2) ablation. -40 degrees is an important number. Not only is it where C and F intersect, but it is also the point at which water vapor has been almost entirely precipitated. The atmosphere at that temperature simply cannot hold water vapor. This is the reason why Antarctica is a desert. Because it doesn't snow at -50. Or -40. All precipitation has been lost at the coast. You will agree with me on this. Hence the accretion of glaciers is an exceedingly slow process at their origin in Antarctica. The glacier accretes more and more as it goes downhill and toward the coast where there is a greater chance for precipitation. At some point, as it gets more temperate in climate the. It may a late more than it accretes. This brings some sense to it. Fast flowing outlet glaciers like Totten and Philipi are losing mass at present. Slower flowing areas in East Africa, like Enderby land, are gaining ice mass. Which makes sense. So that is where Part 1 is not entirely the case. However, the rest of your explanation is fine. It makes sense. Nevertheless, the explanation does not accoun for the increased precipitation with rising water and air temperatures. Meaning that the result will likely be not nearly so dramatic. The system that you described is understandable and sensible. But is also facile in light of its failure to discuss accretion. (Note: with those factors we would expect to see sea/shelf ice drop, since it forms by wholly different process than glaciers, which rely on precipitation). My wife is hotter than your wife.
  5. You understand the difference between a glacier and the glacier tongue, right? The seawater is warmer and goes under the Totten Glacier tongue, thinning it. This is where climate reporting has gotten us. The Totten Glacier is something like 800 miles long and 500 miles wide. So sea water encroachment occurs at the base, where the tongue is. Piss poor reporting. But certainly fits with the narrative. Sea water, warm sea water, is going to climb up the underside of a a glacier hundreds of miles and slide it. Recall that sea water flows downhill? There is some cohesion but find me some seawater that flowed a few hundred miles inland under a glacier and I'll reconsider. I really wish science reporters would quit selling shit like this aimed squarely at the believers. It's like there is a touring group of reformed faith healers out there promising eternal damnation instead. In twenty years all the ice in Antarctica will be gone. Right. Because glaciers now melt from the top down and slide, instead of a laying from the bottom up. The last remnants of glaciers in Antarctica will be on the coastlines. Don't think so. My wife is hotter than your wife.
  6. True. This is a very oversimplified calculation. But the point is that "if all the ice were to melt" is ridiculous. Yet people not only believe that it will happen (it will, in less than a billion years due to solar intensification) but that my grandchildren will see it happen. What are your thoughts, Bill? Do you agree that my grandchildren will be traveling to Safari with the wildebeests in Western Antarctica? Or be applying bug spray to prevent malaria while waterskiing on the vast inland lake of Greenland? Time for some realism. But the point remains: anthropogenic activities have to raise the polar temperature by in excess of 40 degrees C in order to melt all the ice. People will be extinct long before that happens. You do not need to melt it... that will happen after the water intrudes under the ice which will provide lubrication to allow huge quantities of ancient ice currently sitting on land to slide off into the ocean since the floating ice sheet that previously was preventing that is now going away. That will provide a very quick rise in sea level further exacerbating the process for more of the ice to move. There is 4800 METERS thick Ice in places in Antarctica yet at the the South Pole itself is only 2700 meters thick depressing the landmass there down to near sea level other places the volume of ice has depressed the land mass down below sea level. Oh. So Global Warming is going to melt the ice under 4800 meters of it. I get it. Because atmospheric heating will go through the ice and hit the rock underneath, warming it, and causing the ice to slide. And in twenty years or so. My goodness, Jeanne. My wife is hotter than your wife.
  7. True. This is a very oversimplified calculation. But the point is that "if all the ice were to melt" is ridiculous. Yet people not only believe that it will happen (it will, in less than a billion years due to solar intensification) but that my grandchildren will see it happen. What are your thoughts, Bill? Do you agree that my grandchildren will be traveling to Safari with the wildebeests in Western Antarctica? Or be applying bug spray to prevent malaria while waterskiing on the vast inland lake of Greenland? Time for some realism. But the point remains: anthropogenic activities have to raise the polar temperature by in excess of 40 degrees C in order to melt all the ice. People will be extinct long before that happens. My wife is hotter than your wife.
  8. Right. And Patti Reagan did way more than that. My wife is hotter than your wife.
  9. Facts are a great thing..... And here is a look at your grandchildrens America.... better buy land inland now....FACT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW5e61XSMHk&feature=iv&src_vid=VbiRNT_gWUQ&annotation_id=annotation_1859225607 Don't worry..... you will not be around.... but I have a feeling that your descendants will not remember their ancestors kindly. They will not be able to visit many of their ancestors gravesites.... There will be no rest in peace for so many. Burial vaults tend not to do well in floods... and beach erosion far inland to Columbia... Amazon. Put down the Kool Aid. None of our posterity will ever see anything like all the ice melting. It's a simple matter of math (which is something most environmentalists are bad at. Spending ten minutes going through it instead of bitching about the Koch brothers may prove enlightening. Allow me to do the work for you. Okay. HEre goes. Average high temperature for the year is -49 F in Antarctica. I will give benefit of doubt and be conservative and go with that as a baseline (the average temperature is way lower). Heck, let's call it -40 C for an additional margin of error (-40 C matches with -40F). Let's also go on the high end and assume climate CO2 sensitivity is 4C. That is, doubling CO2 concentration will increase temperature 4 degrees Celsius. That means ten iterations of doubling CO2 just to get average high temperature to around 0 degrees C. Assume let's start at 400ppm (which is in the press). Let's go through the CO2 concentrations required for a 40C temp increase to bring average Antarctic high temperature to the freezing point. (1) 400ppm, (2) 800 ppm (3) 1600 ppm (4) 3200 ppm (5) 6400 ppm (fatal to humans with long exposure) (6) 12800 ppm (fatal to humans within a couple of minutes at this level) (7) 25600 ppm (8) 51200 ppm (9) 102400 ppm (10) 204800 ppm (yes, CO2 will have to be 20% of the atmosphere) So the math is really quite easy. All it takes is just a fundamental understanding of the processes involved. This is what it would take to warm Antarctica just to an average freezing temperature for its average high. If you want to melt it you gotta get above freezing for average temperature. So let's iterate one more time and get to 409,600 ppm. yours is the type of tripe that unfortunately has taken hold in popular belief. People like you think that the science has ordained that all the ice will melt by the time my grandkids are born. Your ideas are what pass for the popular understanding of science nowadays. And ironically, it's typically people who believe this crap who think that they have an appreciation of science greater than someone like me who says "that's utter hogwash." You've said what a politician would say. But I assure you, Iran has a better chance of developing a nuke in the next decade that any human has the opportunity of seeing all the ice melt. This is also why the alarmist community is not believed by anyone with analytical ability. No, I am not a scientist. I don't have to be one to do simple multiplication. My wife is hotter than your wife.
  10. My $100 says not a single criminal charge ever comes out of any of these agencies regarding anything to do with the Clintons. Not ever. So if you are so correct, cough up your hundred dollar handshake and we will see A low bar my friend. Nixon was never charged with a crime. Only because he received a pre-emptive pardon. You don't need a pardon if you've not committed a crime. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696 Nor does a person get executed who hasn't committed a crime, right? Beware speaking in absolutes. Always. Bogus comparison. Explain why a pardon is NEEDED if you've not done anything that needs pardoning. Explain this. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OK2AQ20150604 My wife is hotter than your wife.
  11. My $100 says not a single criminal charge ever comes out of any of these agencies regarding anything to do with the Clintons. Not ever. So if you are so correct, cough up your hundred dollar handshake and we will see A low bar my friend. Nixon was never charged with a crime. Only because he received a pre-emptive pardon. You don't need a pardon if you've not committed a crime. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696 Nor does a person get executed who hasn't committed a crime, right? Beware speaking in absolutes. Always. My wife is hotter than your wife.
  12. aa Who was talking about "just" killing people though? That doesn't apply at all to this case. This was by no means simply a killing. This was not simply a crime of passion or heat of the moment. This was clearly premeditated with a manifesto and documentation. The guy was fucking nuts. Ah. So he was nuts because he premeditated it and told the world why he did it. Okay. I'm sure that he would be found not guilty by reason of insanity. I mean, what sane person ever premeditates a murder? I never remotely suggested he should be excused via a sanity defense. Your words and supposition, not mine. I said, the guy was, "fucking nuts." I stand by that. And I say he was a fucking asshole. We can agree to disagree. My wife is hotter than your wife.
  13. Who was talking about "just" killing people though? That doesn't apply at all to this case. This was by no means simply a killing. This was not simply a crime of passion or heat of the moment. This was clearly premeditated with a manifesto and documentation. The guy was fucking nuts. Ah. So he was nuts because he premeditated it and told the world why he did it. Okay. I'm sure that he would be found not guilty by reason of insanity. I mean, what sane person ever premeditates a murder? My wife is hotter than your wife.
  14. He passed a background check. Apparently never got arrested. Never had a diagnosis of anything. Government sanctioned his purchase of a firearm. Looks like the only time he had any trouble with government sanctioning was when he shot some people. I've written all along that he knew how to toe the line. He was a royal asshole. You call it mentally ill. We all know that if a person throws cat shit at a house that he's going to blow people away. But you are right. I think any application for a background check should include the question, "have you ever been accused throwing cat feces at a house?" Should the answer be yes then, by all means, this person is insane and a threat to blow people away. My wife is hotter than your wife.
  15. No. I don't find it "Normal." remwmber when. I said between 2 and 5 percent? No, throwing cat shit at neighbors' homes isn't normal. But having dogs shit on my lawn is. Having cats shit in my of kids' sandbox seems to be. Why must it be extreme? I said this guy was an asshole. Apparently you disagree thay throwing cat shit is an asshole thing to do. It's not normal behavior to park a car in front of a driveway, either. But when someone does thay is thay person mentally ill? Or just a selfish ass? But here is a question: is there any abnormal human behavior that you consider to not be a sign of mental illness? Like, I don't know, hurling yourself at a planet from a couple of miles up? My wife is hotter than your wife.