There are about 26.5 million cubic kilometers of ice on antarctica.Skans » 05 Jul 2023, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑ Next to nothing. 70% of the world is already covered by liquid water. What minimal ice (comparatively) that is on Antarctica which would actually melt would mostly be absorbed into a warmer atmosphere. Not to mention the natural lakes and rivers that would remain on that continent.
Don't forget that a many parts of Antarctica has no ice at all, or just a very thin layer of ice.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/antar ... 20m%20high.
Anyone can show a source, in the age of google.
You trust the same government with your health and to name your enemies for you.
Not to mention that when ice melts it takes up only 90% of the volume as water, at most. If its snow, then its more like 60%.Cannonpointer » 05 Jul 2023, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑ There are about 26.5 million cubic kilometers of ice on antarctica.
There are 1.35 billion cubic kilometers of water in the seas.
That's .02%, or .0002, I think. Let me double check. So, a rise of 2/100s of a percent.
You can double that number, since the sea ice would also melt.
Huh. I never checked that before. That's intriguing.
I am not convinced that this:maineman » 05 Jul 2023, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑ https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryospher ... 00%20feet).
The Antarctic Ice Sheet measures nearly 4.9 kilometers (3 miles) at its thickest point and contains about 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice. If the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise about 60 meters (200 feet). If the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise about 60 meters (200 feet).
Leads to THIS:maineman » 05 Jul 2023, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑ https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryospher ... 00%20feet).
The Antarctic Ice Sheet measures nearly 4.9 kilometers (3 miles) at its thickest point and contains about 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice.
Show the math. Based on the volume of water in the seas (1.35 billion cubic kilometers) vs. the volume of ice on antarctica (26.5 million cubic kilometers), I show an increase of just under 2% OF 2%. That is less than one for every 10,000. I will readily confess that I do not know whether such a relatively small increase could raise the oceans by an inch or a foot or a mile. But I need more than a claim based on extremely dubious authority, when I look at the relative size of the numbers.maineman » 05 Jul 2023, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑If the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise about 60 meters (200 feet).
OUCHY....for the GroomerMANCannonpointer » 05 Jul 2023, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑ I am not convinced that this:
Leads to THIS:
.
Show the math. Based on the volume of water in the seas vs. the volume of ice on antarctica, I show an increase of only 2% OF 2%. I will readily confess that I do not know whether such a relatively small increase could raise the oceans by an inch or a foot or a mile. But I need more than a claim based on extremely dubious authority, when I look at the relative size of the numbers.
My jabs worked out for me. You'll see, I'll be haunting this forum for a long time - LOL!!!Cannonpointer » 05 Jul 2023, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑ You trust the same government with your health and to name your enemies for you.
Very interesting.
https://math.stackexchange.com/question ... elting-iceCannonpointer » 05 Jul 2023, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑ I am not convinced that this:
Leads to THIS:
Show the math. Based on the volume of water in the seas (1.35 billion cubic kilometers) vs. the volume of ice on antarctica (26.5 million cubic kilometers), I show an increase of just under 2% OF 2%. That is less than one for every 10,000. I will readily confess that I do not know whether such a relatively small increase could raise the oceans by an inch or a foot or a mile. But I need more than a claim based on extremely dubious authority, when I look at the relative size of the numbers.
Such a turn would only convince me that you lied about four shots.Skans » 05 Jul 2023, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑ My jabs worked out for me. You'll see, I'll be haunting this forum for a long time - LOL!!!
I had 4 jabs. That is the absolute truth. 4 Pfizer jabs. Not 1. Not 2. Not even 3, but 4. You are just wrong about the jabs. I will live forever. Or, at least a day longer than you.Cannonpointer » 05 Jul 2023, 1:38 pm » wrote: ↑ Such a turn would only convince me that you lied about four shots.
No way you're healthy, unless you're a liar.
You're as stuck in my tautology as you are in your own, ***. Gotcha.
Which way do you have it? Don't be shy.Mrkelly » 04 Jul 2023, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑ You can't have it both ways
When it snows in April, we are told "that's weather, not climate"
I took the jabs (2) until learning that China was trying to kill us with it, and big pharma was making deals with Brandon to kill our tax coffers.Skans » 05 Jul 2023, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑ My jabs worked out for me. You'll see, I'll be haunting this forum for a long time - LOL!!!
I see your desperate posts.Skans » 05 Jul 2023, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑ I had 4 jabs. That is the absolute truth. 4 Pfizer jabs. Not 1. Not 2. Not even 3, but 4. You are just wrong about the jabs. I will live forever. Or, at least a day longer than you.
Thank you for that.
An "age" has a beginning and an end.Sumela » 05 Jul 2023, 12:42 pm » wrote: ↑ i dont know man.
I guess they never bothered to consider
what ICE AGE means and in entails.
Ok, so you had 2 jabs. You're still here. Not dead. And, I presume no adverse affects, right?DeplorablePatriot » 05 Jul 2023, 1:53 pm » wrote: ↑ I took the jabs (2) until learning that China was trying to kill us with it, and big pharma was making deals with Brandon to kill our tax coffers.