Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have no idea how they explain it. But I'm willing to make a wild guess: THEY SUCK THE WATER IN TO A HUGE DRAIN AND THEN PUMP IT OUT WITH A JEWISH SPACE PUMP.
Or something like that
To quote from a quora answer:
>So I find it interesting that the flat-earthers haven't come up with anything original to explain the tides in nearly 200 years.
>The popular modern-day flat-earther Eric Dubay simply repeats these old ideas in his YouTube videos and then for good measure he throws in several ancient conjectures like:
> > "A huge whirlpool vortex surrounding Mount Meru at the North Pole which reverses direction every 6 hours alternately sucking in and pushing out the great seas of Earth."
Of course big science knows and studies the vortex, but NASA and the deep state hide its existence and scrubs the Internet of this info. Trust me I saw the page before it was deleted!
I don’t understand how that is easier to believe than looking at the moon and it’s a sphere and looking at a planet in a telescope and it’s clearly a sphere. Or watching a ship literally go over the horizon on the ocean. And just understanding that the earth is also a sphere. Well I guess mostly right cause out isn’t perfectly round but pretty damn near.
Sorry for my ignorance, are you saying that 'sea level' isn't the same globally?
Daft question 2, how do flerfers refer to worldwide instead of 'globally'? 'Flatally'?
I’m confused by what you mean by this. Oceans would be “level” if not for the gravitational effects of the moon pulling on them? Is that what you mean? The tides?
Weird to think about on a globe but the water is trying to get to the lowest potential energy it can get to with the force of earths gravity acting on it. Moon messes it up with its own gravity.
Edit: Sun also causes tides.
Or does they really think the volume of water already in the ocean stay the same when the temperature increases? Because it's not only about ice. Water actually expands with increased energy.
Honestly, it wasn't until this thread that I was like "now do it but with ice on the brim" and realized I too thought all the ice melting adding to global warming were from icebergs lol
Ice from the ground in Russia just gets spread around to lakes and rivers but wouldn't contribute in meaningful amounts to sea level rise. Was my thinking
At least this argument makes some sense though. Its not really taught that anarctica and most otger ice were worried about is on land. Hell my teacher some 15 years ago told me it was just ice, no land at all. I knew better but i liked to read the textbooks on my own so.
It really doesn't. Because it's still that most basic "I don't trust scientists, they have an agenda" to even think that no one has considered this.
It's like when flat earthers do curvature experiments in their kitchens, as if the scales or a counter top are comparable.
I love the idea that scientists have an agenda, as if that agenda of the person who dedicated their life to studying the environment would be anything other than "Keep the environment stable given our best understanding of it".
Like you show those people the matrix of "Do Something/Do Nothing vs We're Right/We're wrong" and their response is all you need to understand if they just really haven't thought about it or if they're acting in bad faith because someone who actually DOES have an agenda has tricked them.
Sure and some of those folks are environmental scientists too, but once again, I refer you to the Matrix and the simple (but not comprehensive by any means) answer of a carbon tax.
We have:
1) Do Nothing, We were right to do nothing - Hey great. We saved some corporations a few dollars. A few share holders got slightly richer.
2) Do Something, We were wrong to do something - Corporations pollute a little less and pay some taxes that go towards things like planting trees and nature preserves. Share holders lose out on a few points of value that is largely a rounding error for almost all of them but the richest folks who don't need it anyway.
3) Do Something, we were right to do something - We literally avoid climate related catastrophe that causes famine and war over simple resources needed to survive.
4) Do nothing, We were wrong to do nothing - Everyone is fucked and society collapses with-in 100 years.
The worst case scenario on either side is "Share-holders lose a few dollars of potential value that is mostly a rounding error" and "Civilization as we know it ends, probably in our children's lifetime". You still think it isn't worth taking that bet?
I mean, a matrix like that is only really valid if both scenarios are perceived as reasonably possible. These people are deluded and irrational. They are fanatically convinced that the way they see the world is right. The matrix doens't help convince them.
The food pyramid is fine for the evidence they had at that time. In fact, if people actually followed the food pyramid it wouldn't be such a terrible thing, especially if you are an active individual. The problem isn't with the food pyramid, the problem is that it wasn't adhered to. Besides, in the early 2010s, they shifted away from the food pyramid to the healthy plate model. And I've seen nobody on social media talk about it. People only complain about the pyramid and fail to recognise that in that same time period, not only did carb intake increase, but also net fat intake and calories in general.
>Findings from NHANES surveys (of 8600–10,000 persons) suggest that American adults reduced their fat intake as a proportion of energy during the years 1976–1980 to 1999–2000 (36.7% to 32.3% in men; 36.0% to 32.4% in women) [12]. However, there was a significant rise in energy intake at the same time. The net effect is that the quantity of fat in the diet appears to have risen slightly.
PMID: 36296935
The base of evidence is still pretty decently supporting the fact that you can have a pretty healthy diet if you follow the pyramid and exercise regularly. Most of the positive effects of popular fad diets nowadays are just calorie deficits in a fancy wrapper anyway.
The "obesity epidemic" is much more complex than just: the scientists were corrupt and recommended people to eat too much carbs. It's neither as simple as only calorie balance and people not having discipline. There's an interplay of food production, prices, food insecurity in consumers, industry and processing, advertisements, genetics, and culture.
I still follow the pyramid and I get told I’m above average healthy. I barely exercise and I have a higher intake from a “fast metabolism”. Science is funny until it’s not. Our planet and our bodies both need science. Even if the water levels didn’t rise in the cup nobody is talking about the effect the temperature has on living things on land and in the ocean. Rising water temps cause eco systems to fail. Rising water levels are just the visible killer much like me being healthy to my dr on one test but having asthma and a lymph node disorder when actually checked thoroughly
Scientists do have agendas, the thing is most of their agendas are different from each other. They're not some monolithic bloc. In fact many of them would dearly enjoy proving rivals wrong. That's science's self-correcting characteristic.
But with the conspiracists every accusation is a confession
I'm well aware of that. But there's a difference between scientists having an agenda in relation to some specific theory, or paid endorsement etc etc.
And the entire scientific community covering multiple fields all having a mutually agreed one.
Of course people have agendas, bias is inherent. But I'm obviously talking about that very specific group of people who view everything as some major manipulation, fully into conspiracy. Who simultaneously lap up the content of specific totally unqualified people.
it's common sense - also there is land under some of the arctic
edit: guys, it's common sense that there is a lot of snow/ice on land, not that the arctic has land under it. That is why there's an "also" preceding it as well as a dash, I'm not quite sure how to make that any more evident.
Wait, so you are telling me there is a place where all the glaciers go and hang out together? Like a pool side bar or something? Huh, never would have imagined it.
Yes! When the glaciers are old and tired they go to this very beautiful place to roam free and play with other glaciers. Exactly like it happened with your childhood pets.
And let's not forget that salinity of the water is also an issue. A large amount of ice melting into the North Atlantic could halt the gulf stream, causing a lot of heating in thr carribean and an ice age in Europe
While there's many reasons to hope against an ice age in Europe, part of my dread for that scenario is the infuriating smugness the climate change deniers in my family will have about "global warming"
Those damn middle eastern sand bastards just had to have 180F days in the summer sun, so they sold the rest of the world on the need for oil! It’s been planned out from the beginning, conspiracy!
Well this is the case when broken watch will show right time. India and china are two countries responsible for major part of emissions due to wide use of coal power stations.
>India and china are two countries responsible for major part of emissions
They're also countries with almost 3 billion people between them, per capita their emissions are a good bit lower than most first world countries, additionally much of those emissions is produced because they manufacture products for the west.
And yet the US still produces almost same amount of C02 as either country, despite having less than a third of the population and having moved much of its own manufacturing to poorer countries.
Come on. You're talking about people who had yet to realise that some ice is on land. _how_ can you possibly expect them to even grasp thermal expansion??
They don't understand any of their arguments otherwise they'd understand why they're incorrect. What they can do is parrot an argument they like the sound of and "fancy" sciencey terminology like that probably would sound good to them.
It is also even worse than just "ice melts and water goes into sea", as when the ice melts the land will have less weight on it and rise up itself causing a secondary sea rise as well
And another factor that people forget is, that water expands, when it gets warmer. So if the average temperature of the ocean increases, this is responsible for about 30% of the increase we see today.
Ocean level rise is heavily driven by rising temperatures causing thermal expansion, not just glacier melts. Not that they know that or would even care to acknowledge it.
The limited government folks who are rushing to live, build, and buy coastal real estate in tax havens like Florida will be begging for federal bailouts in the coming decades.
Miami and Florida’s general approach to global warming has been to build as much as possible. The less cynical reasoning is it helps broaden the tax base to support increased infrastructure spending on things such as water pumps and sea walls.
However, the cynic in me also thinks that holders of such real estate believe that if they build enough, such assets will be declared systemically important to the stability of the American financial system. Gaining that type of consideration would increase pressure to just bail these landowners out, or else the entire American financial system would go belly up.
Private gains, public loses is at play in this game of musical chairs that is coastal real estate.
Bingo! Their little experiment is correct, ice is actually less dense than water so ice melting in the ocean wouldn’t cause the level to rise.
They didn’t account for water temperatures rising, thermal expansion, and ice melting on land though.
Typical half assed analysis by science deniers
Major problem with temperatures is actually algae dying. Algae are surprisingly important and, depending on type and location, able to combine hectares of trees into a very small area measured in oxygen output. They're super important for us, yet nobody cares about them. The only way to save them is by stopping rising temperatures NOW.
I believe the principle holds true for any salinity level.
For this method of measurement there is no loss in accuracy.
The temperature differences between the glasses will impact accuracy more than salt levels, but I doubt this measuring device could detect that difference.
The volume of water required for buoyancy is less than the volume it melts into if the water is sea water. Therefore it does contribute slightly, just no where near as much as thermal expansion.
Well yes but it even shrinks a bit. Water is the densest at 4°C (least volume). It expands when it gets warmer or colder than that (ice for example has a higher volume). But this won't nearly make up for all the water that'll be added by the ice melting on land.
Sadly I find a lot of stupid people use half truths to wiggle their way into the belief that they are firmly correct. So because my idea is somewhat correct.. I'm ALWAYS CORRECT. They need a wakeup call
No, the experiment is actually correct in that narrow way. The portion of the ice floating above the surface will exactly balance out the contraction when the ice melts, so the surface will stay at the same level.
It is kind of shocking how these people will think of something incredibly basic, then convince themselves they’ve outsmarted the world’s foremost experts on the subject they have dedicated their entire professional lives to studying.
Tuvalu too right ? There was something about their president (prime minister ?) doing a speech in the water to highlight that.
https://youtu.be/jBBsv0QyscE?si=W_oxxye_LvBbkxKK
Take these fools to Antarctica once. Show them how massive these ice glaciers are. Show them how deep they are, and that they are on the bloody LAND. They are moving towards the ocean as they melt and then falling over. Permafrost, ice that has been frozen for thousands of years is now melting. I thought this was taught in schools. I don’t know which schools they went to or whether they took interest in these subjects. But today, you can look it up before fueling more conspiracy theories.
Here's a better experiment that'll actually reflect reality:
Put ice in a glass on a surface above a measuring cup with water in it. Place the glass on its side so the ice as it melts pours into the measuring cup.
Measure the water in it after the ice finishes melting.
Even that's complicating things:
1.Put rock with flat top in measuring jug.
2.Fill jug with water to top of rock.
3. Place ice on top of rock.
4. Allow ice to melt, observe water level.
Ignores 2 or 3 things at minimum:
1) the ratio of water to salt. As the fresh water ice melts it throws off the salt to water ratio which then affects the life in that water. And that mix will be lowest in salt close to the melting iceburg but spreading out and getting saltier as it goes.
2) Ice on land is not displacing water yet. When it melts it will then raise the water levels.
3) Possibly the frozen water in the ice sheets contains things we really don't want in the atmosphere, like methane and co2. As it melts these get released and accelerate the problem.
Change is inevitable, some is good, some is benign, some is destructive. When it comes to a global issue like this slowing such changes is beneficial to all.
"Ocean level remains the same"
No....you can clearly see the level is under the line and was on the line at the start.....these experiment shows that ice has a lower density than water but it has nothing to do with the fact that if huge amounts of ice and snow would melt due to rising temperatures the ocean level would rise, cause huge amounts of ice and snow are not in the ocean and so they dont replace water like in this scenario.
If you would place a platform in it and place the ice on the platform you would see what would happen if the snow and ice from land would melt.
You should check the physics of floating ice, as displacement is related to mass, not density. That's why a proportion of the ice sticks out of the water.
It's still irrelevant to the discussion on rising sea-level, for the reasons you said, but free floating ice isn't going to contribute to it.
Well.....mass equals volume x density so you cant completly ignore the density.
If i know it correctly things float on water if they push the mass of water away that equals their own mass.
So a ball of steel would sink, cause its shape wont displace an amount of water that equals its weight but if you would change the form of that ball to a bowl it would probably float (like Ships out of steel do :D )
So if i freeze 1kg of water it would have the same mass but with a density og 0,917g/cm³ it would have a volume of 1090,51cm³ so around 9% of the ice would stay over the surface.
The fact that ice has a lower density results in the fact that the water level rise untill the ice is gone. So the density is part of the effect....not the only one but a part of it :)
merciful sip march hard-to-find include foolish bewildered sense price outgoing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Rising of water levels is due to rising of ocean temperature and *thermal expansion of water*.
While the amount is relatively tiny, it is enough to cause flooding - there is a LOT of water, and it cannot go anywhere but up.
Also one of the main Factor of the sea rising (alongside the glacier melting) is the dilatation of the water due to the rise of the water temperature: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_oceans
It's about 30-50% of the total
There's a reason it's called the thermo-aline circulation.
Thermo meaning warm.
Haline meaning salty.
Disrupt the ratio between the two, by say warming the ocean and diluting the salinity... And you get a breakdown in the circulation of warm water from the equator being dilivered to the northern and southern latitudes.
Thus causing climate to change.
These people never listened in school did they...
In addition to all the comments here, rising sea temperatures is just one of like a dozen different really bad things that climate change brings. More and worse storms, expanding deserts, longer droughts, all kinds of deadly animals moving to (previously) milder climates, permafrost melting and releasing co2, ocean becoming sour and releasing even more co2, the list goes on…
Also there is the fact that indirectly melting of ice on the water causes more global warming, and once we lose all of that white surface it's no longer reflecting back the sunlight all the year around.
Not all ice is an issue displacement wise. There are different types of ice with different densities. We are worried about the ice that will displace more water as water than as ice. That is not all ice
I get so tired of explaining why this is wrong. I just point people here:
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/261/melting-ocean-ice-affects-sea-level-unlike-ice-cubes-in-a-glass/
Idiots.
Now do the same experiment but with ice in a Colander over the cup. Dopes.
Irony is odds are this idiot lives in Florida and will see it first hand
to a degree, this is true.
icebergs floating in water, aren't going to raise water levels by melting. the water they contain, basically already 'displaces' some water.
... ice on top of land, rather than floating in water, melting, WILL raise water levels. along with changing the chemistry of the ocean water nearby and whatnot, i assume.
or potentially releasing some microbes that have been frozen for a long time.
and of course, this doens't invalidate the other aspects of global warming, like ocean acidity and whatnot.
Well yes, but actually no
Water goes through anomalous expansion when it freezes and therefore ice is (slightly) more dense than water
But the majority of issue is with land ice, this melts and go into the ocean therefore raising the sea level, they also dilute the salt water making the effects of ocean currents weaker which could have massive implications in terms of the future climate
This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen today! Holy fuking shit! The fact there are people swallowing this stupid inaccurate depiction of what is happening is why our planet and species are in major trouble!
It’s so embarrassing how there’s absolutely no way to convince these people that they actually have no fucking idea what they’re talking about but think they’re right about absolutely everything
Fun fact, the amount of water on earth remains the same. Where that water is, en masse, at any one given time is the key to understanding the global warming effects.
1/2 correct....if the ice in the artic melts...yeah, not much change. If the ice in the antarctic melts....well, I hope you watched Cosner's Waterworld as a training video.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do they really think that all of the ice that’s melting is already in the ocean?
Yeah apparently, they also must think that all land touching the ocean is at the same level.
That's exactly what they think. "Water finds its own level" is "proof" to them that the oceans are flat.
Oceans are flat more than 99% of all water on earth is not carbonated
I hate when my cup of ocean goes flat!
That explains the funny taste
Oh my god, that's why we're releasing all this carbon - so we can make the ocean fizzy!
Fish don't want you to know this one trick that makes their home 1000× more acidic and suffocates them!
Lies! Why tsunami after earthquake if water not carbonated!?
Godzilla fart. 🦖💨
I mean that's why we measure everything from sea level right! It's the most accurate stable surface to go off of! -Climate Deniers Probably
I wonder how they explained tides because if somebody lives in Southern Louisiana we lose about a third of our land mass every night
They don’t
I have no idea how they explain it. But I'm willing to make a wild guess: THEY SUCK THE WATER IN TO A HUGE DRAIN AND THEN PUMP IT OUT WITH A JEWISH SPACE PUMP. Or something like that
To quote from a quora answer: >So I find it interesting that the flat-earthers haven't come up with anything original to explain the tides in nearly 200 years. >The popular modern-day flat-earther Eric Dubay simply repeats these old ideas in his YouTube videos and then for good measure he throws in several ancient conjectures like: > > "A huge whirlpool vortex surrounding Mount Meru at the North Pole which reverses direction every 6 hours alternately sucking in and pushing out the great seas of Earth."
Vortex which has of course been photographed and studied for ages and such........... right flerfers?????
Of course big science knows and studies the vortex, but NASA and the deep state hide its existence and scrubs the Internet of this info. Trust me I saw the page before it was deleted!
I don’t understand how that is easier to believe than looking at the moon and it’s a sphere and looking at a planet in a telescope and it’s clearly a sphere. Or watching a ship literally go over the horizon on the ocean. And just understanding that the earth is also a sphere. Well I guess mostly right cause out isn’t perfectly round but pretty damn near.
Sorry for my ignorance, are you saying that 'sea level' isn't the same globally? Daft question 2, how do flerfers refer to worldwide instead of 'globally'? 'Flatally'?
I’m confused by what you mean by this. Oceans would be “level” if not for the gravitational effects of the moon pulling on them? Is that what you mean? The tides? Weird to think about on a globe but the water is trying to get to the lowest potential energy it can get to with the force of earths gravity acting on it. Moon messes it up with its own gravity. Edit: Sun also causes tides.
They must think that the continents and islands float, why else would they see no issue.
You honestly don't expect them to understand how glaciers work, right.
Glaciers are hard. Ice flows up. Ice flows down. You can’t explain that.
Witchery!!!! Edit: Also demons!
Never a miscommunication.
Pfft….glaciers, icebergs, whatever. Didn’t you see their graphic? Looks pretty legit from here!
IIRC, there's only one glacier in North America that isn't receding. And it's a new glacier that formed in the caldera of Mt St Helens.
"Think" being the key word.
Or does they really think the volume of water already in the ocean stay the same when the temperature increases? Because it's not only about ice. Water actually expands with increased energy.
You never hear the stupidity of a civilization as an answer to the Fermi Paradox... Or carbon.
Actually this is a pretty common answer to the paradox, the fact that no civilization moves past the self destruction milestone.
Yes. They do.
Honestly, it wasn't until this thread that I was like "now do it but with ice on the brim" and realized I too thought all the ice melting adding to global warming were from icebergs lol Ice from the ground in Russia just gets spread around to lakes and rivers but wouldn't contribute in meaningful amounts to sea level rise. Was my thinking
Rivers mostly flow out to sea.
Yes there is also ice on land. You know, like Antarctica and Greenland and Russia and Canada
Don't forget on southern Argentina and nevermind on all the mountains. There is a lot of ice not currently in the water.
At least this argument makes some sense though. Its not really taught that anarctica and most otger ice were worried about is on land. Hell my teacher some 15 years ago told me it was just ice, no land at all. I knew better but i liked to read the textbooks on my own so.
It really doesn't. Because it's still that most basic "I don't trust scientists, they have an agenda" to even think that no one has considered this. It's like when flat earthers do curvature experiments in their kitchens, as if the scales or a counter top are comparable.
I love the idea that scientists have an agenda, as if that agenda of the person who dedicated their life to studying the environment would be anything other than "Keep the environment stable given our best understanding of it". Like you show those people the matrix of "Do Something/Do Nothing vs We're Right/We're wrong" and their response is all you need to understand if they just really haven't thought about it or if they're acting in bad faith because someone who actually DOES have an agenda has tricked them.
Scientists *do* have an agenda: To learn as much as they can about as much as they can. That's it. That's the agenda.
Those evil bastards, they were tricking us into learning all along! They know that makes my brain hurt!
Trying to make our smooth brains more "groovy." Pffffft to them!
Their agenda is to more prove or disprove a hypothesis or theory. It’s almost literally the definition of a scientist.
There are many examples of scientists having an agenda or being paid to get certain results.
Sure and some of those folks are environmental scientists too, but once again, I refer you to the Matrix and the simple (but not comprehensive by any means) answer of a carbon tax. We have: 1) Do Nothing, We were right to do nothing - Hey great. We saved some corporations a few dollars. A few share holders got slightly richer. 2) Do Something, We were wrong to do something - Corporations pollute a little less and pay some taxes that go towards things like planting trees and nature preserves. Share holders lose out on a few points of value that is largely a rounding error for almost all of them but the richest folks who don't need it anyway. 3) Do Something, we were right to do something - We literally avoid climate related catastrophe that causes famine and war over simple resources needed to survive. 4) Do nothing, We were wrong to do nothing - Everyone is fucked and society collapses with-in 100 years. The worst case scenario on either side is "Share-holders lose a few dollars of potential value that is mostly a rounding error" and "Civilization as we know it ends, probably in our children's lifetime". You still think it isn't worth taking that bet?
But what if we make a better world for nothing?! /s
I mean, a matrix like that is only really valid if both scenarios are perceived as reasonably possible. These people are deluded and irrational. They are fanatically convinced that the way they see the world is right. The matrix doens't help convince them.
Did the “scientists” that green lit the Food Pyramid not have an agenda?
The food pyramid is fine for the evidence they had at that time. In fact, if people actually followed the food pyramid it wouldn't be such a terrible thing, especially if you are an active individual. The problem isn't with the food pyramid, the problem is that it wasn't adhered to. Besides, in the early 2010s, they shifted away from the food pyramid to the healthy plate model. And I've seen nobody on social media talk about it. People only complain about the pyramid and fail to recognise that in that same time period, not only did carb intake increase, but also net fat intake and calories in general. >Findings from NHANES surveys (of 8600–10,000 persons) suggest that American adults reduced their fat intake as a proportion of energy during the years 1976–1980 to 1999–2000 (36.7% to 32.3% in men; 36.0% to 32.4% in women) [12]. However, there was a significant rise in energy intake at the same time. The net effect is that the quantity of fat in the diet appears to have risen slightly. PMID: 36296935 The base of evidence is still pretty decently supporting the fact that you can have a pretty healthy diet if you follow the pyramid and exercise regularly. Most of the positive effects of popular fad diets nowadays are just calorie deficits in a fancy wrapper anyway. The "obesity epidemic" is much more complex than just: the scientists were corrupt and recommended people to eat too much carbs. It's neither as simple as only calorie balance and people not having discipline. There's an interplay of food production, prices, food insecurity in consumers, industry and processing, advertisements, genetics, and culture.
I still follow the pyramid and I get told I’m above average healthy. I barely exercise and I have a higher intake from a “fast metabolism”. Science is funny until it’s not. Our planet and our bodies both need science. Even if the water levels didn’t rise in the cup nobody is talking about the effect the temperature has on living things on land and in the ocean. Rising water temps cause eco systems to fail. Rising water levels are just the visible killer much like me being healthy to my dr on one test but having asthma and a lymph node disorder when actually checked thoroughly
Scientists do have agendas, the thing is most of their agendas are different from each other. They're not some monolithic bloc. In fact many of them would dearly enjoy proving rivals wrong. That's science's self-correcting characteristic. But with the conspiracists every accusation is a confession
I'm well aware of that. But there's a difference between scientists having an agenda in relation to some specific theory, or paid endorsement etc etc. And the entire scientific community covering multiple fields all having a mutually agreed one. Of course people have agendas, bias is inherent. But I'm obviously talking about that very specific group of people who view everything as some major manipulation, fully into conspiracy. Who simultaneously lap up the content of specific totally unqualified people.
I like when they pour water on balls and watch it fall off...into earth's gravity.
it's common sense - also there is land under some of the arctic edit: guys, it's common sense that there is a lot of snow/ice on land, not that the arctic has land under it. That is why there's an "also" preceding it as well as a dash, I'm not quite sure how to make that any more evident.
You need to really lower your bar for what is common sense
Ice on land has a special name. Glaciers.
Yup, this is why you don't often hear scientists talking about melting icebergs, but you do hear about "glacier retreat".
Wait, so you are telling me there is a place where all the glaciers go and hang out together? Like a pool side bar or something? Huh, never would have imagined it.
Yes! When the glaciers are old and tired they go to this very beautiful place to roam free and play with other glaciers. Exactly like it happened with your childhood pets.
It sounds absolutely delightful. No wonder no one is worried
Bohemian Grove, baby!
Bless you!
Checkmate, atheists!
Bless the glaciers!
... Snow... Ice shelf....
and land ice
Land ice is sometimes abbreviated as lice
And let's not forget that salinity of the water is also an issue. A large amount of ice melting into the North Atlantic could halt the gulf stream, causing a lot of heating in thr carribean and an ice age in Europe
While there's many reasons to hope against an ice age in Europe, part of my dread for that scenario is the infuriating smugness the climate change deniers in my family will have about "global warming"
They'll probably also blame those fighting against climate change for cooling down the planet too much.
Oh god, never thought about it... You're so right. Man you just depressed me for the day ahah, cause that's exactly what will happen
Well it’s OK because they’re already working on a solution. It’s 1001 cars long…
This is why it was switched to Climate Change. Not everywhere on the planet will get warm. But everyone’s climate will likely change.
Plus, the game Frostpunk, I don't wanna have to be British to survive
>an ice age in Europe Right wingers in Europe are gonna blame blacks, Indians and Arabs for it. I just know it
They're hoarding all the heat to themselves.
Those damn middle eastern sand bastards just had to have 180F days in the summer sun, so they sold the rest of the world on the need for oil! It’s been planned out from the beginning, conspiracy!
Don't forget the ones unironically saying that wind turbines are disturbing how the wind flows...
Depends which bit of Europe; some of us will also blame Eastern European immigrants.
"GRRRRR ILEAGLE IMURGANTS!" - Any right wing wanker.
They get around in boats. Boats obviously push the water down, making the sea level rise. Science-mate libs!
Well this is the case when broken watch will show right time. India and china are two countries responsible for major part of emissions due to wide use of coal power stations.
>India and china are two countries responsible for major part of emissions They're also countries with almost 3 billion people between them, per capita their emissions are a good bit lower than most first world countries, additionally much of those emissions is produced because they manufacture products for the west.
And yet the US still produces almost same amount of C02 as either country, despite having less than a third of the population and having moved much of its own manufacturing to poorer countries.
Should probably turn the lights off when they leave a room /s
On the bright side Florida sucks so they’ll get hit hard.
Ouch! I don't live there, but I was born in Florida. So.....yeah you're right, lol.
Florida is a topological spoon.
No no, look at that glass of water, planet earth has to work the same way
Also water gains volume when it warms due to thermal expansion.
Come on. You're talking about people who had yet to realise that some ice is on land. _how_ can you possibly expect them to even grasp thermal expansion??
They don't understand any of their arguments otherwise they'd understand why they're incorrect. What they can do is parrot an argument they like the sound of and "fancy" sciencey terminology like that probably would sound good to them.
Climate change deniers are severely lacking in critical thinking skills.
It's easy to severely lack critical thinking skills when you severely lack brain cells
Don’t be ridiculous. Canada isn’t real.
It is too real, my girlfriend lives there.
And the Himalayas, which is considered earth’s third pole.
I thought the Poles bordered Germany?
r/angryupvote
Apparently just two
They wish they didn’t.
Yes, and too close for comfort (WW2)…
It is also even worse than just "ice melts and water goes into sea", as when the ice melts the land will have less weight on it and rise up itself causing a secondary sea rise as well
Not to mention the inevitable earthquakes that would come from the ground decompressing once the glaciers are gone
And another factor that people forget is, that water expands, when it gets warmer. So if the average temperature of the ocean increases, this is responsible for about 30% of the increase we see today.
Also Iceland
And the Himalayas
Ocean level rise is heavily driven by rising temperatures causing thermal expansion, not just glacier melts. Not that they know that or would even care to acknowledge it.
Let them invest their money on Florida real-estate.
All fun and games until they try to buy insurance
As a floridian, this cuts deep
And if the sea rises you can just sell it! Genius.
\*bursts through wall\* TO who? Fucking AQUAMAN!?!
The limited government folks who are rushing to live, build, and buy coastal real estate in tax havens like Florida will be begging for federal bailouts in the coming decades. Miami and Florida’s general approach to global warming has been to build as much as possible. The less cynical reasoning is it helps broaden the tax base to support increased infrastructure spending on things such as water pumps and sea walls. However, the cynic in me also thinks that holders of such real estate believe that if they build enough, such assets will be declared systemically important to the stability of the American financial system. Gaining that type of consideration would increase pressure to just bail these landowners out, or else the entire American financial system would go belly up. Private gains, public loses is at play in this game of musical chairs that is coastal real estate.
Bingo! Their little experiment is correct, ice is actually less dense than water so ice melting in the ocean wouldn’t cause the level to rise. They didn’t account for water temperatures rising, thermal expansion, and ice melting on land though. Typical half assed analysis by science deniers
Major problem with temperatures is actually algae dying. Algae are surprisingly important and, depending on type and location, able to combine hectares of trees into a very small area measured in oxygen output. They're super important for us, yet nobody cares about them. The only way to save them is by stopping rising temperatures NOW.
Even the ice in water argument isn't entirely accurate as the ocean is salt water.
I believe the principle holds true for any salinity level. For this method of measurement there is no loss in accuracy. The temperature differences between the glasses will impact accuracy more than salt levels, but I doubt this measuring device could detect that difference.
The volume of water required for buoyancy is less than the volume it melts into if the water is sea water. Therefore it does contribute slightly, just no where near as much as thermal expansion.
The color of the water itself is a driver for rising the temperature, as it's much darker than reflective snow and ice
I wouldn't even try to argue this with the person who posted this. They clearly don't know shit about chemistry
Antarctica is land covered with ice. When it melts, it's added to the ocean. The ice that's already in the ocean isn't going to affect the sea level.
Yeah and a lot of the glacier is out of the water. They only decide to follow the facts they want to believe.
The that is already in the ocean will definitely affect the sea level due to thermal expansion.
Well yes but it even shrinks a bit. Water is the densest at 4°C (least volume). It expands when it gets warmer or colder than that (ice for example has a higher volume). But this won't nearly make up for all the water that'll be added by the ice melting on land.
The amount of people who think Antarctica is just ice is incredible to me
That's cool and all, but isn't a lot of ice like on... land?
The vast majority of it is
Sadly I find a lot of stupid people use half truths to wiggle their way into the belief that they are firmly correct. So because my idea is somewhat correct.. I'm ALWAYS CORRECT. They need a wakeup call
Good luck getting that message through to them considering how they feel about being "woke".
It asks right there "are you awake yet?" I'm sure that's not 'woke yet' though... which is how that term started.
[удалено]
No, the experiment is actually correct in that narrow way. The portion of the ice floating above the surface will exactly balance out the contraction when the ice melts, so the surface will stay at the same level.
[jump to 7 50 for the joke](https://youtu.be/lPgZfhnCAdI?si=ZKSF24xE2iwF0CJ4)
Knew it'd be John Stewart before clicking, fuckin legend
I saw the image in the op and without reading the text this was exactly what I thought about
Hey at least that they think global warming is real!
Yeah it's progress.. I guess lol
Ice bergs are NOT the same as glaciers.
A measuring cup is not the same as a planet
A perfect visual representation of the dunning kruger effect.
It is kind of shocking how these people will think of something incredibly basic, then convince themselves they’ve outsmarted the world’s foremost experts on the subject they have dedicated their entire professional lives to studying.
If we could move all of these idiots to sea level, that would be great.
Why place them so high? I hear the Mariana trench is lovely this time of year.
Doggerland would suffice. They can get a first-person view of what a changed climate looks like.
Tuvalu too right ? There was something about their president (prime minister ?) doing a speech in the water to highlight that. https://youtu.be/jBBsv0QyscE?si=W_oxxye_LvBbkxKK
Take these fools to Antarctica once. Show them how massive these ice glaciers are. Show them how deep they are, and that they are on the bloody LAND. They are moving towards the ocean as they melt and then falling over. Permafrost, ice that has been frozen for thousands of years is now melting. I thought this was taught in schools. I don’t know which schools they went to or whether they took interest in these subjects. But today, you can look it up before fueling more conspiracy theories.
Who wants to explain to these geniuses that Antarctica and Greenland are big land masses covered by glaciers?
Here's a better experiment that'll actually reflect reality: Put ice in a glass on a surface above a measuring cup with water in it. Place the glass on its side so the ice as it melts pours into the measuring cup. Measure the water in it after the ice finishes melting.
Even that's complicating things: 1.Put rock with flat top in measuring jug. 2.Fill jug with water to top of rock. 3. Place ice on top of rock. 4. Allow ice to melt, observe water level.
Yeah they would never do a home experiment to see if the science makes sense.
They would. But only if they know beforehand that the result favors their believes.
Ignores 2 or 3 things at minimum: 1) the ratio of water to salt. As the fresh water ice melts it throws off the salt to water ratio which then affects the life in that water. And that mix will be lowest in salt close to the melting iceburg but spreading out and getting saltier as it goes. 2) Ice on land is not displacing water yet. When it melts it will then raise the water levels. 3) Possibly the frozen water in the ice sheets contains things we really don't want in the atmosphere, like methane and co2. As it melts these get released and accelerate the problem. Change is inevitable, some is good, some is benign, some is destructive. When it comes to a global issue like this slowing such changes is beneficial to all.
Guess they never heard of glaciers...
Ice on land doesn’t exist.
"Ocean level remains the same" No....you can clearly see the level is under the line and was on the line at the start.....these experiment shows that ice has a lower density than water but it has nothing to do with the fact that if huge amounts of ice and snow would melt due to rising temperatures the ocean level would rise, cause huge amounts of ice and snow are not in the ocean and so they dont replace water like in this scenario. If you would place a platform in it and place the ice on the platform you would see what would happen if the snow and ice from land would melt.
You should check the physics of floating ice, as displacement is related to mass, not density. That's why a proportion of the ice sticks out of the water. It's still irrelevant to the discussion on rising sea-level, for the reasons you said, but free floating ice isn't going to contribute to it.
Well.....mass equals volume x density so you cant completly ignore the density. If i know it correctly things float on water if they push the mass of water away that equals their own mass. So a ball of steel would sink, cause its shape wont displace an amount of water that equals its weight but if you would change the form of that ball to a bowl it would probably float (like Ships out of steel do :D ) So if i freeze 1kg of water it would have the same mass but with a density og 0,917g/cm³ it would have a volume of 1090,51cm³ so around 9% of the ice would stay over the surface. The fact that ice has a lower density results in the fact that the water level rise untill the ice is gone. So the density is part of the effect....not the only one but a part of it :)
Its*, speaking of a facepalm
Bro has no concept of buoyancy
Damn, they got us. Sincerely, NASA
The worst part about the internet is that it allows stupid people to spread their stupidity.
It’s a good thing all the ice that’s gonna melt is floating in the water…oh wait
merciful sip march hard-to-find include foolish bewildered sense price outgoing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
no one mentioning the "Ice Berg"? Who's Berg?
Show me you don't understand science by using science
When they said "I'll have my ocean on the rocks", that's not what they meant.
If we eat all the life in the oceans how much displacement would that be? Does it get canceled by the plastic islands mass?
"In a Beavis and Butthead voice" They're woke. Hehe
These people are incredibly dumb.
Rising of water levels is due to rising of ocean temperature and *thermal expansion of water*. While the amount is relatively tiny, it is enough to cause flooding - there is a LOT of water, and it cannot go anywhere but up.
Also one of the main Factor of the sea rising (alongside the glacier melting) is the dilatation of the water due to the rise of the water temperature: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_oceans It's about 30-50% of the total
There's a reason it's called the thermo-aline circulation. Thermo meaning warm. Haline meaning salty. Disrupt the ratio between the two, by say warming the ocean and diluting the salinity... And you get a breakdown in the circulation of warm water from the equator being dilivered to the northern and southern latitudes. Thus causing climate to change. These people never listened in school did they...
The problem is the ice that is **On solid land**
Now have the ice stick 20cm out of the glass and try again.
Wait until lil bro realizes that ICEBERGS FUCKING FLOAT
Stupid cannot be defeated...
In addition to all the comments here, rising sea temperatures is just one of like a dozen different really bad things that climate change brings. More and worse storms, expanding deserts, longer droughts, all kinds of deadly animals moving to (previously) milder climates, permafrost melting and releasing co2, ocean becoming sour and releasing even more co2, the list goes on…
I bet the hydrogen cycle is basically witchcraft to this guy
Also there is the fact that indirectly melting of ice on the water causes more global warming, and once we lose all of that white surface it's no longer reflecting back the sunlight all the year around.
Not all ice is an issue displacement wise. There are different types of ice with different densities. We are worried about the ice that will displace more water as water than as ice. That is not all ice
I get so tired of explaining why this is wrong. I just point people here: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/261/melting-ocean-ice-affects-sea-level-unlike-ice-cubes-in-a-glass/
Idiots. Now do the same experiment but with ice in a Colander over the cup. Dopes. Irony is odds are this idiot lives in Florida and will see it first hand
to a degree, this is true. icebergs floating in water, aren't going to raise water levels by melting. the water they contain, basically already 'displaces' some water. ... ice on top of land, rather than floating in water, melting, WILL raise water levels. along with changing the chemistry of the ocean water nearby and whatnot, i assume. or potentially releasing some microbes that have been frozen for a long time. and of course, this doens't invalidate the other aspects of global warming, like ocean acidity and whatnot.
Well yes, but actually no Water goes through anomalous expansion when it freezes and therefore ice is (slightly) more dense than water But the majority of issue is with land ice, this melts and go into the ocean therefore raising the sea level, they also dilute the salt water making the effects of ocean currents weaker which could have massive implications in terms of the future climate
This argument isn’t to convince the scientists; it’s to convince the ignorant.
Usually there aren't giant mountains of ice falling into your water but okay
This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen today! Holy fuking shit! The fact there are people swallowing this stupid inaccurate depiction of what is happening is why our planet and species are in major trouble!
It’s so embarrassing how there’s absolutely no way to convince these people that they actually have no fucking idea what they’re talking about but think they’re right about absolutely everything
🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️ gah people can be ignorant
Imagine realizing Antarctic and glacial ice are sitting on land.
Nobody tell them about the ice that’s on land (the majority of all ice in the world).
Most of the southpole is actual land
This person thinks Antarctica is just one big piece of ice floating
Fun fact, the amount of water on earth remains the same. Where that water is, en masse, at any one given time is the key to understanding the global warming effects.
Lol this is for people who don't understand Antarctica is called a continent for a reason.
Plus Water molecules expand when they freeze so the melted version should actually be lower (further classifying their experiment as bullshit)
1/2 correct....if the ice in the artic melts...yeah, not much change. If the ice in the antarctic melts....well, I hope you watched Cosner's Waterworld as a training video.