We're doomed! Again
- Thread starter Digit
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Grinding One
Established Member
Can we get that in Imperial measuments??Digit":1kz8d94v said:
139,000,000 square miles for the ocean's area. 3090 square miles for the surface area of the glacier and 2950 feet for the max depth.
And hurry up fellahs, I'm just about to place my order for Gopher wood!
Roy.
And hurry up fellahs, I'm just about to place my order for Gopher wood!
Roy.
cambournepete
Established Member
7 metres...? He must be including other melting effects as well.
My maths reckons that glacier adds nearer 2cm... :roll:
My maths reckons that glacier adds nearer 2cm... :roll:
dunbarhamlin
Established Member
Just the spur needed to reinvigorate the market for 3/4" platform shoes.
How can you say Jake when if he's referring to that glacier it's under 2cm and if he's referring to ALL glaciers he does not state so?
The 2 cms, which is the same figure I arrived at, assumes that the glacier is 900 meters deep all over, which it ain't, and ignores the point that sea level rises spread out side ways and up rivers and into lakes, thereby not reaching calculated figures.
Taking that into account, plus the fact that the volume of melt water is less than the volume of ice, a more accurate figure would be in the region of one centimetre.
Instead of scaremongering the authors/reporters should ensure accuracy in science, this isn't some celebs age we are discussing.
One's the one thing by the way, you've lost me.
Roy.
The 2 cms, which is the same figure I arrived at, assumes that the glacier is 900 meters deep all over, which it ain't, and ignores the point that sea level rises spread out side ways and up rivers and into lakes, thereby not reaching calculated figures.
Taking that into account, plus the fact that the volume of melt water is less than the volume of ice, a more accurate figure would be in the region of one centimetre.
Instead of scaremongering the authors/reporters should ensure accuracy in science, this isn't some celebs age we are discussing.
One's the one thing by the way, you've lost me.
Roy.
Jake":29v27xn7 said:
Unfortunately she didn't even get the conversion between sq km and sq miles correct. 8,000 sq km is just a tad over 3,000 square miles not 5,500. The northren hemisphere ice cap accounts for only about 10% of the world's ice and it would all need to melt to give a rise of anything near 7 metres. I'm not saying that increased rate of glacial melting may not cause problems but then again glaciers used to cover all of northern europe and when they melted the world didn't come to an end. It may enforce some pretty drastic lifestyle changes on the human race but we are an adaptable lot and life will go on.
Digit":3c9idzm6 said:
He doesn't say otherwise, and some journo has stuck his quote in a piece she chose to start with the example of a particular glacier - I don't reckon you can blame him for that, surely?
Have a go at the journo then, not him.
Heh, how fitting.
Frankly George I sometimes despair, we had this B/S with the Collider 'tother week.
The trouble is people accept these statements without question.
Even the National Geographic managed earlier this year to confuse the Earth's orbit with it polar inclination.
Don't they have proof readers these days?
Roy.
The trouble is people accept these statements without question.
Even the National Geographic managed earlier this year to confuse the Earth's orbit with it polar inclination.
Don't they have proof readers these days?
Roy.
Is it? Without an explanation I can't tell. Perhaps you would care to clarify the matter?
Perhaps you could also clarify if all the ice YOU are referring to would in fact equate to 7 meters rise?
I ceased reading fairy tales some time back.
I await your explanation with considerable interest.
Roy
Digit":3nbxsb16 said:
Perhaps if you read my posts with more care, you would understand? Ditto the article.
I have no idea, but I do know that you started the thread attacking the scientist for supposedly having said that particular glacier melting would make a 7m difference, and there is nothing to indicate he said that in the quotes from him, indeed rather the opposite.
Well I've re-read your posts Jake, carefully, I still don't understand what the thing is, so perhaps you would oblige.
I would point out that I have posted the same article as I posted here on two other fora and you appear to be only one who sees the article as you do.
Strange that!
Roy.
I would point out that I have posted the same article as I posted here on two other fora and you appear to be only one who sees the article as you do.
Strange that!
Roy.
I was saying that poor comprehension was the cause of this thread.
As to no-one else being able to read the quote properly, I suspect that the reason is as you said "The trouble is people accept these statements without question" - in this case your unfair accusation.
Go and read the quote from him on its own. Then read the text around it as if it was written by the journalist. Then imagine that the person being quoted had no control over the context into which his quote was plonked - because that's a fact.
As to no-one else being able to read the quote properly, I suspect that the reason is as you said "The trouble is people accept these statements without question" - in this case your unfair accusation.
Go and read the quote from him on its own. Then read the text around it as if it was written by the journalist. Then imagine that the person being quoted had no control over the context into which his quote was plonked - because that's a fact.
Which of course may well be correct I grant you Jake.
But I pointed out that science reports should be accurate and not open to mis understanding.
This fails if you are correct.
I would also point out that the ARTICLE fails to make any mention of the recent sub glacial volcanic eruption that took place beneath this glacier or any mention of what contribution the remaining heat may have made to the melt rate.
If that is scientific accuracy I'll go back to the fairy stories.
Oh, and by the way, there is a suspect volcano under one of the melting Antarctic ice sheets as well.
The doom merchants don't mention that either do they?
Roy.
But I pointed out that science reports should be accurate and not open to mis understanding.
This fails if you are correct.
I would also point out that the ARTICLE fails to make any mention of the recent sub glacial volcanic eruption that took place beneath this glacier or any mention of what contribution the remaining heat may have made to the melt rate.
If that is scientific accuracy I'll go back to the fairy stories.
Oh, and by the way, there is a suspect volcano under one of the melting Antarctic ice sheets as well.
The doom merchants don't mention that either do they?
Roy.
cambournepete
Established Member
Ah good, I can still do simple maths thenDigit":2e3sji54 said:
Agreed - but I went for worst case. I'm not sure the "up rivers" bit would actually make a huge difference, but I'm not a sea-level modeller...Digit":2e3sji54 said:
Probably.Digit":2e3sji54 said:
Still a poor article though. :roll:
