Greta Thunberg's unofficial and unauthorized thread of the global changes discussion

Si tu penses que le niveau de la mer va monter de 80 pieds gun toé dans yeule.

An 8 year old could conduct an experiment at home and realize the water won't rise. Fill a glass up mostly with water and then put ice cubes in it until the water reaches the rim. Come back in an hour and tell me if the glass overflowed. Hint: not until water changes it's fundamental properties, i.e. NEVER.

What may be possible is that the ice melts, cools the water and fucks with the Gulf stream thus plunging Europe into northern Canada like conditions where they'll be ill prepared and wishing for global warming..... but I don't hear that concern voiced much.

Also human beings are arrogant to think they are the source of global warming when one hour of sunlight equates to the power the entire world uses in a year. We're 1/8760 of the sun output. If the sun has an active year it would make our output even less significant.

Pollution is a different story though. Not in the sense that we need more electric cars instead of V8's, no, we spend so much energy and effort to make a piece of shit V8 that will break down in less than 10 years which will then be scrapped. Yes it get recycled but that's more energy we need to use instead of just making it last a lifetime in the first place.
 
An 8 year old could conduct an experiment at home and realize the water won't rise. Fill a glass up mostly with water and then put ice cubes in it until the water reaches the rim. Come back in an hour and tell me if the glass overflowed. Hint: not until water changes it's fundamental properties, i.e. NEVER.

What may be possible is that the ice melts, cools the water and fucks with the Gulf stream thus plunging Europe into northern Canada like conditions where they'll be ill prepared and wishing for global warming..... but I don't hear that concern voiced much.

Also human beings are arrogant to think they are the source of global warming when one hour of sunlight equates to the power the entire world uses in a year. We're 1/8760 of the sun output. If the sun has an active year it would make our output even less significant.

Pollution is a different story though. Not in the sense that we need more electric cars instead of V8's, no, we spend so much energy and effort to make a piece of shit V8 that will break down in less than 10 years which will then be scrapped. Yes it get recycled but that's more energy we need to use instead of just making it last a lifetime in the first place.

Jai lu ta premiere ligne et je realise maintenant qu avec un commentaire du genre, ya rien a faire. Im out.
 
Ah ce fameux argument de la glace dans un verre...

«*Quand le pain de glace « banquise » fond, le niveau de l’eau reste inchangé alors que quand le « glacier » des « terres » émergées se liquéfie, l’eau monte.

Pourquoi ces différences ? « La banquise appuie déjà sur l’eau. Si elle fond, cela ne change rien au niveau des mers (en vertu du principe de la poussée d’Archimède), résume la spécialiste. Par contre, lorsque le glacier, qui est formé de neige accumulée pendant très longtemps, fond, l’eau qui était stockée en dehors des océans va les rejoindre et donc le volume augmente et le niveau de la mer monte. »

Selon les projections des experts, si toute la glace de l’Antarctique (continent blanc situé au pôle Sud qui représente 90 % des glaces terrestres) et du Groenland fondait, le niveau des océans augmenterait de… 70 mètres ! En revanche, la fonte de la banquise et des icebergs, qui flottent sur la mer, ne ferait pas varier ce niveau d’un iota.*»
 
Imagine toi, on est en 2019, faut encore s'obstiner avec des tatas qui te sortent l'exemple de verre d'eau avec dla glace. Colisse!! Faut convaincre les epais, qu'ils sont epais!
 
The density of ice is 0.9167–0.9168 g/cm3 at 0 °C and standard atmospheric pressure (101,325 Pa), whereas water has a density of 0.9998–0.999863 g/cm3 at the same temperature and pressure.
 
The density of ice is 0.9167–0.9168 g/cm3 at 0 °C and standard atmospheric pressure (101,325 Pa), whereas water has a density of 0.9998–0.999863 g/cm3 at the same temperature and pressure.


https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20050801_floatingice.html

In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.
 
I'm glad that she was able to cross the North Atlantic Ocean in a poor people's 4.91 million dollar IMOCA 60 class yacht to tell us that somebody need to do something. Now she can keep on sailing to India and China to spread the same message to people actually generating an incredible amount of CO2.
 
Tel dit ! fa le test che vous cet hiver !

Prend un verre d'o fuckin plein va chercher un bucket de neige déhor. Fait la fonde pi rajoute la dan ton ver d'o ! sa va rien changer !

jai po fait le test mais criss chu un gars qui fait c recherche googueul, j'connai plus sa ke lé sientifik
 
Ah ce fameux argument de la glace dans un verre...

«*Quand le pain de glace « banquise » fond, le niveau de l’eau reste inchangé alors que quand le « glacier » des « terres » émergées se liquéfie, l’eau monte.

Pourquoi ces différences ? « La banquise appuie déjà sur l’eau. Si elle fond, cela ne change rien au niveau des mers (en vertu du principe de la poussée d’Archimède), résume la spécialiste. Par contre, lorsque le glacier, qui est formé de neige accumulée pendant très longtemps, fond, l’eau qui était stockée en dehors des océans va les rejoindre et donc le volume augmente et le niveau de la mer monte. »

Selon les projections des experts, si toute la glace de l’Antarctique (continent blanc situé au pôle Sud qui représente 90 % des glaces terrestres) et du Groenland fondait, le niveau des océans augmenterait de… 70 mètres ! En revanche, la fonte de la banquise et des icebergs, qui flottent sur la mer, ne ferait pas varier ce niveau d’un iota.*»

This is assuming that every single bit of ice melts. When ice melt now, most of the time it's sea ice that comes and goes, maybe a bit of continental ice but that's a heck of a lot more permanent so it's not adding much to the sea level. Also note that when the melt happen at one pole, it's building in the other so there's also that balancing factor.

Please tell me what temperature these "experts" claim the Earth needs to be for that to happen. I imagine it would have to be >0C at the pole without sunlight for 6 months so that would mean the other side of the world in summer is melting Cremetoria style (Riddick)

It's fucking fear mongering is all it is. They take an outlandish theoretical situation where there is zero ice left on earth and get money for their "work on doomsday prevention". I'd sooner bet that some part of California crumbles into the ocean before the sea level rises more than 2m.

And Outsider, you're the "tata' for believing you even know a fraction of what I think and know. You and some others on this forum only think one step past what I write, if that, so feel free to check out, no loss to me. because I wasn't expecting any stimulating conversation anyways.
 
This is assuming that every single bit of ice melts. When ice melt now, most of the time it's sea ice that comes and goes, maybe a bit of continental ice but that's a heck of a lot more permanent so it's not adding much to the sea level. Also note that when the melt happen at one pole, it's building in the other so there's also that balancing factor.

Please tell me what temperature these "experts" claim the Earth needs to be for that to happen. I imagine it would have to be >0C at the pole without sunlight for 6 months so that would mean the other side of the world in summer is melting Cremetoria style (Riddick)

It's fucking fear mongering is all it is. They take an outlandish theoretical situation where there is zero ice left on earth and get money for their "work on doomsday prevention". I'd sooner bet that some part of California crumbles into the ocean before the sea level rises more than 2m.

And Outsider, you're the "tata' for believing you even know a fraction of what I think and know. You and some others on this forum only think one step past what I write, if that, so feel free to check out, no loss to me. because I wasn't expecting any stimulating conversation anyways.


C est quoi ton back ground deja pour etre capable de reprendre des milliers de scientifiques? Qui te dis que parce qu'on croit a la montée des eaux, on s'attends a une catastrophe qui menance notre existence imminente? Pourquoi on pourrait pas juste se dire, shit, jpense ca va faire des problemes assez tuff a contenir dans le futur? Bin non, t'es comme tous les autres, t'es incapable de jouer dans les details et incapable de ne pas aller aux extremes. Tu traites les gens de fear mongerers, mais tu nous traites tous de fous furieux qui croient a la fin du monde imminente. Gtfo.

And I guess since we only see one step ahead, you dont? Ahhhh of course, you're one of those geniuses on internet forums that only exist to wake us all up.

Calisse que t'es pathetique, toi pis ta gang d'illuminés.
 
C est quoi ton back ground deja pour etre capable de reprendre des milliers de scientifiques? Qui te dis que parce qu'on croit a la montée des eaux, on s'attends a une catastrophe qui menance notre existence imminente? Pourquoi on pourrait pas juste se dire, shit, jpense ca va faire des problemes assez tuff a contenir dans le futur? Bin non, t'es comme tous les autres, t'es incapable de jouer dans les details et incapable de ne pas aller aux extremes. Tu traites les gens de fear mongerers, mais tu nous traites tous de fous furieux qui croient a la fin du monde imminente. Gtfo.

And I guess since we only see one step ahead, you dont? Ahhhh of course, you're one of those geniuses on internet forums that only exist to wake us all up.

Calisse que t'es pathetique, toi pis ta gang d'illuminés.


Firstly why deal in extremes? Simple, the solution has to fall within the boundary conditions. If you've ever done a puzzle, usually you start with the extremities because they're easy to define and then you build the picture inwards. Most people don't apply that logic to anything else. One of the "straight edge pieces" is the temperature that the world would have to be to make it so that everything melted. I'm fully aware it's unlikely to happen but it's where you start working inwards from.

As for the "fear mongering", I quickly searched up ice melting and this is one of the first article it gave me: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02653-x. Wasn't long before I saw how they bamboozle people; manipulate the scope of the data. There's a lot more to the deception but let's take the easiest, the graphs.

Why do they leave out certain years?.... oh yeah, because they were on the lower bound of average.

If you go here: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ hide all data points and put only 2012 and 2013. 2012 was "the lowest recorded" like they report but by Feb 2013 there was more ice that reformed than the year before and then after an average summer there was an average amount melted (2013). So 2012 could just be statistical noise unless you can prove trends.

My point is not to cherry pick in the other direction but to show you how these motherfuckers skew their data so that it looks worse than it is. I also view it the same as somebody in the month of July telling you how warm it's getting and basing this warming trend off of only temperature readings since January. No shit it's getting warmer but if you had more data you'd realize there's a cycle and you need not freak out that by December the world will be on fire. The article says they've only been doing this for 40 years.

So to bring this back to Greta, her and those like her skim these headlines, not realizing that people have more pressing "green" motives, usually in the form of $100 denominations. They've learned to make money if they peddle climate doom porn like snake oil salesmen. Then those same people cheer Greta on like a window manufacturer would cheer on a group of kids pitching stones at shop windows. The bigger the doom, the more money and attention they stand to get. I'm open to the fact that man made climate change could be happening but when I read most stuff all I can see are the slights of hands by people looking to keep their gravy trains running through trickery instead of science.
 
Mais pour faire mon avocat du diable, en Amérique du Nord le changement le plus significatif qu'on pourrait faire pour l'environnement ce serait d'arrêter de consommer de la viande comme des imbéciles.
 
Just be happy that new cars here won't have gas particulate filters yet....
i honestly don't see what we're waiting for. diesels had it for the same reasons, and ever since DI gas engines have been around, solid particulate emissions have skyrocketted. It's just not regulated...yet.
 
Mais pour faire mon avocat du diable, en Amérique du Nord le changement le plus significatif qu'on pourrait faire pour l'environnement ce serait d'arrêter de consommer de la viande comme des imbéciles.
ça et arrêter d'acheter des choses comme des défoncés. ça coûte plus cher, mais acheter des produits locales à la place d'acheter de l'importé ça fait une bonne différence. Le made in china / PRC, c'est partout dans les magasins. Notre prochaine table de salle à manger, je la fais fabriquer par un ami d'un ami.
 
Ca juste pu de bon sens cette histoire la...

Sur FB si tu es pas POUR Greta tu es juste un imbécile de droite ignorant, etc. C'est actuellement impossible de la critiquer. Elle est devenue intouchable. Plus aucune discussion n'est possible avec les Gretafan
 
Ca juste pu de bon sens cette histoire la...

Sur FB si tu es pas POUR Greta tu es juste un imbécile de droite ignorant, etc. C'est actuellement impossible de la critiquer. Elle est devenue intouchable. Plus aucune discussion n'est possible avec les Gretafan

C'est quoi le problème d'être de l’ignare de la droite venant des gauchistes de marde? Je vois ça plutôt comme une approbation que ceux qui les (Greta et ses fefans) critiquent ont raison.

En passant, elle est aussi détestée en Suède.


J'ai essayé de voir les posts pro-Greta sur Fessebook et voici ce que j'ai eu lorsque je me suis loggé.

fb.jpg

Je présume que j'ai été flaggé comme un Troll sur fessebook.
 
Ca juste pu de bon sens cette histoire la...

Sur FB si tu es pas POUR Greta tu es juste un imbécile de droite ignorant, etc. C'est actuellement impossible de la critiquer. Elle est devenue intouchable. Plus aucune discussion n'est possible avec les Gretafan

Ici pas de Facebook, Twitter , etc etc,
problem solved en tbnk !!!
 
Back
Top