killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
You trying to cheer me up or something?
Schuylaar's Sesh - NASA.."We Have Reached The Point Of No Return..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
Show me any peer review published work in Psychology or other respected Journal on this and I will read it
Doer
Well-Known Member
It is busy busy for many reasons but I've never seen a study that supports the full moon business.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
what about a study of computer scientist who critique other areas of science and won't admit it?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Some people like to beef about Mongolians, others just order the Pu Pu Platter, except not at Wendy's.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Something is bugging me...how did they arrive at the 4 foot idea?
For the moment, let's preclude coriolis force and angular momentum (to ensure an "even" distribution of this "flood"). Ice has a density of 917 (kg m^-3)--that is, ice has a greater volume per kilogram than pure water by ~9%. (I know, saline is 1028 kg m^-3, but that can be put aside for the moment, too).
What is the coverage of ocean relative to Earth? According to NOAA, it is 71%.
What is the surface area of the Earth? 510720000 km^2. (note the "kilo" prefix). Therefore, the oceans cover 362611200 km^2.
4 feet = 1.2192 m
1 km^2 = 1E3 x 1E3 m^2 = 1E6 m^2
So, 362611200000000 m^2 x 1.2192 m = ~4.421E14 m^3
This is the change in volume of the oceans. Now, applying the scalar for ice volume one should get ~4.821E14 m^3 of ICE.
To achieve that volume would require a cube of ice with basis dimension of ~78412 m or 78.4 km.
What is the average thickness of ice for the area of concern?
Time to dig into the papers:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/pdf
The parts below sea level are meaningless (in fact, they would reduce sea level if they melt). So what is left? Well, how about that 1.2 m rise they claim? They never calculate it...
Where does it come from?
Rignot et al, 2008... too obscure (and there are two papers from 2008 ).
How about this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423
Holy shee-it! Almost the entire area of concern is already underwater, with surface ice hardly above sea level...
Good grief! They then calculate the volume of ice based on a MEAN for thickness (2152 m) and bedrock height (82.8 m). According to the other reported numbers, ~44.7% of Antarctica is below sea level. Hmmm...that is a large enough difference to create some errors between median and mean, yet perhaps not enough to be of concern at this point. In fact, I believe that skews in favour of positive mean, anyway.
I don't know about you, but I am already smelling the hokum from these dire predictions. Perhaps a recap is in order:
1) we need a cube of ice 78.4 km per side;
2) the area of concern is mostly underwater already;
3) using avg. thickness of ~2km require ~38 "slices" of this 78.4km x 78.4km "cube" ABOVE SEA LEVEL
Conclusion: Poorly anchored methodology. Essentially the entire western part in "green" has to melt along with a large chunk of the south pole.
I just don't see that being a concern in your grand-children's lifetime, and by then everything will have changed dramatically to where this type of prediction becomes utterly moot. It is the opinion of the author that Greenland is of greater concern, and it is not because of sea-level rise, either. However, the introduction of fresh-water from the Antarctic can equally disturb the thermal currents, compounding the North Atlantic issues. Ironically, this will lead to even colder winters. This is an area requiring further study.
But that is another thread topic altogether (and probably better suited for Sci/Tech).
Signed,
I. M. Stohnd, Th.C. C.Bd.
For the moment, let's preclude coriolis force and angular momentum (to ensure an "even" distribution of this "flood"). Ice has a density of 917 (kg m^-3)--that is, ice has a greater volume per kilogram than pure water by ~9%. (I know, saline is 1028 kg m^-3, but that can be put aside for the moment, too).
What is the coverage of ocean relative to Earth? According to NOAA, it is 71%.
What is the surface area of the Earth? 510720000 km^2. (note the "kilo" prefix). Therefore, the oceans cover 362611200 km^2.
4 feet = 1.2192 m
1 km^2 = 1E3 x 1E3 m^2 = 1E6 m^2
So, 362611200000000 m^2 x 1.2192 m = ~4.421E14 m^3
This is the change in volume of the oceans. Now, applying the scalar for ice volume one should get ~4.821E14 m^3 of ICE.
To achieve that volume would require a cube of ice with basis dimension of ~78412 m or 78.4 km.
What is the average thickness of ice for the area of concern?
Time to dig into the papers:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/pdf
The parts below sea level are meaningless (in fact, they would reduce sea level if they melt). So what is left? Well, how about that 1.2 m rise they claim? They never calculate it...
Where does it come from?
Rignot et al, 2008... too obscure (and there are two papers from 2008 ).
How about this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423
Holy shee-it! Almost the entire area of concern is already underwater, with surface ice hardly above sea level...
Good grief! They then calculate the volume of ice based on a MEAN for thickness (2152 m) and bedrock height (82.8 m). According to the other reported numbers, ~44.7% of Antarctica is below sea level. Hmmm...that is a large enough difference to create some errors between median and mean, yet perhaps not enough to be of concern at this point. In fact, I believe that skews in favour of positive mean, anyway.
I don't know about you, but I am already smelling the hokum from these dire predictions. Perhaps a recap is in order:
1) we need a cube of ice 78.4 km per side;
2) the area of concern is mostly underwater already;
3) using avg. thickness of ~2km require ~38 "slices" of this 78.4km x 78.4km "cube" ABOVE SEA LEVEL
Conclusion: Poorly anchored methodology. Essentially the entire western part in "green" has to melt along with a large chunk of the south pole.
I just don't see that being a concern in your grand-children's lifetime, and by then everything will have changed dramatically to where this type of prediction becomes utterly moot. It is the opinion of the author that Greenland is of greater concern, and it is not because of sea-level rise, either. However, the introduction of fresh-water from the Antarctic can equally disturb the thermal currents, compounding the North Atlantic issues. Ironically, this will lead to even colder winters. This is an area requiring further study.
But that is another thread topic altogether (and probably better suited for Sci/Tech).
Signed,
I. M. Stohnd, Th.C. C.Bd.
Ra$p0tin
Well-Known Member
Tell that to to the health care workers that deal with the ER's and Mental Health fields and you hear a different story. Which includes new moon effects as well.Yes, there is no evidence to that one either,
So it fits right in.
a senile fungus
Well-Known Member
Not all phenomena have had studies done on them, contrary to the belief of many members here...
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Something is bugging me...how did they arrive at the 4 foot idea?
For the moment, let's preclude coriolis force and angular momentum (to ensure an "even" distribution of this "flood"). Ice has a density of 917 (kg m^-3)--that is, ice has a greater volume per kilogram than pure water by ~9%. (I know, saline is 1028 kg m^-3, but that can be put aside for the moment, too).
What is the coverage of ocean relative to Earth? According to NOAA, it is 71%.
What is the surface area of the Earth? 510720000 km^2. (note the "kilo" prefix). Therefore, the oceans cover 362611200 km^2.
4 feet = 1.2192 m
1 km^2 = 1E3 x 1E3 m^2 = 1E6 m^2
So, 362611200000000 m^2 x 1.2192 m = ~4.421E14 m^3
This is the change in volume of the oceans. Now, applying the scalar for ice volume one should get ~4.821E14 m^3 of ICE.
To achieve that volume would require a cube of ice with basis dimension of ~78412 m or 78.4 km.
What is the average thickness of ice for the area of concern?
Time to dig into the papers:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/pdf
View attachment 3153934
The parts below sea level are meaningless (in fact, they would reduce sea level if they melt). So what is left? Well, how about that 1.2 m rise they claim? They never calculate it...
Where does it come from?
Rignot et al, 2008... too obscure (and there are two papers from 2008 ).
How about this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423
Holy shee-it! Almost the entire area of concern is already underwater, with surface ice hardly above sea level...
Good grief! They then calculate the volume of ice based on a MEAN for thickness (2152 m) and bedrock height (82.8 m). According to the other reported numbers, ~44.7% of Antarctica is below sea level. Hmmm...that is a large enough difference to create some errors between median and mean, yet perhaps not enough to be of concern at this point. In fact, I believe that skews in favour of positive mean, anyway.
I don't know about you, but I am already smelling the hokum from these dire predictions. Perhaps a recap is in order:
1) we need a cube of ice 78.4 km per side;
2) the area of concern is mostly underwater already;
3) using avg. thickness of ~2km require ~38 "slices" of this 78.4km x 78.4km "cube" ABOVE SEA LEVEL
Conclusion: Poorly anchored methodology. Essentially the entire western part in "green" has to melt along with a large chunk of the south pole.
I just don't see that being a concern in your grand-children's lifetime, and by then everything will have changed dramatically to where this type of prediction becomes utterly moot. It is the opinion of the author that Greenland is of greater concern, and it is not because of sea-level rise, either. However, the introduction of fresh-water from the Antarctic can equally disturb the thermal currents, compounding the North Atlantic issues. Ironically, this will lead to even colder winters. This is an area requiring further study.
But that is another thread topic altogether (and probably better suited for Sci/Tech).
Signed,
I. M. Stohnd, Th.C. C.Bd.
Hazydat620
Well-Known Member
I knew this all sounded familiar, you pulled all of this from The Day After Tomorrow movie didn't you? Didn't you?
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
Hey Kids!
How about a song?
How about a song?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
As a matter of fact, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
It has the acronym THC... how can you go wrong?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
You know the Journal Psychology (although being a pseudoscientific discipline) does infact institute peer review?
it's okay RR, those with Downs often go on to lead productive lives..
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm so happy to hear your good news. Santa brought you a new adult tri-cycle and you're learning to ride it? That's great.