Not The Onion: Climate Change Causing Ocean Floor To Sink Under Water Weight From Melting Glaciers

[Cellblock2429]

So you ask, isn't that weight already in the ice? Ice is lighter than water. It floats. So it doesn't count. Or something. Trying to follow our scientific superiors thinking gives me a headache.


So much extra water is being added into the world’s oceans from melting glaciers that the ocean floor is sinking underneath its increasing weight. This ocean floor deformation also means we have miscalculated just how much ocean levels are rising and the problem could be far worse than previously believed.

Over the past 20 years, ocean basins have sunk an average of 0.004 inches per year. This means that the ocean is 0.08 inches deeper than it was two decades ago. While this small fragment of an inch may not seem much, oceans cover 70 percent of our planet, making the problem bigger than it seems at an initial glance.

All that extra water from melting glaciers has caused the ocean to sink

/-----/ Oh no we're all not going to drown after all.

 

[Wuwei]

No, the second law doesn't prevent anything...the 2nd law is just a statement about reality...nature prevents two way energy flow..the 2nd law only makes this easily knowable to all but the most stupid.

talk and talk and talk..and say nothing... Energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...let me know when they change the second law of thermodynamics to say otherwise...

You are totally wrong, but that's what happens when you don't understand science. Maybe someday you will understand why vibrating atoms must radiate no matter the background. Maybe someday you will understand why cold molecules must strike an adjacent warmer surface.

 

[Wuwei]

Thermodynanmics isn't just concerned with radiation...thermodynamics is concerned with all forms of energy...if you aren't capable of even grasping that basic bit of information, then you really aren't worth talking to..

That's right thermodynamics is concerned with all types of energy, but you haven't a clue why a stationary rock on a hill does not change entropy. A rock rolling down a hill, yes, a stationary rock, no.

 

[SSDD]

You are totally wrong, but that's what happens when you don't understand science. Maybe someday you will understand why vibrating atoms must radiate no matter the background. Maybe someday you will understand why cold molecules must strike an adjacent warmer surface.

Actually, it is you who is wrong, but then you fail so badly at science that I am sure that in your own mind, you are perfectly right....regardless of every observation and measurement ever made...because someone told you so.

Describe the mechanism that makes atoms vibrate, then describe how that vibration is translated into radiation...then describe the mechanism that makes that radiation leave the molecule...then describe the mechanism of that energy movement away from the molecule..and do this without bringing in unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable models...explain it in blunt, provable terms in the same manner as one might describe the workings of a mechanical system.

And by the way...saying that this must vibrate, or that must radiate isn't even beginning to touch on the mechanism of energy movement...the fact that you thought it did is just another example of how much you don't know.

 

[SSDD]

Thermodynanmics isn't just concerned with radiation...thermodynamics is concerned with all forms of energy...if you aren't capable of even grasping that basic bit of information, then you really aren't worth talking to..

That's right thermodynamics is concerned with all types of energy, but you haven't a clue why a stationary rock on a hill does not change entropy. A rock rolling down a hill, yes, a stationary rock, no.

Poor goob...can you not get the concept of potential energy in your mind?...thermodynamics is concerned with all energy whether it be potential or kinetic.

You appear to have forgotten why this discussion even started...typical...you lack any sort of focus and fly off on all sorts of tangents in an effort to not be wrong.

I stated that the 2nd law states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...

To which you made the idiotic statement that the second law means that "thermal" energy could not move spontaneously from cool to warm as if the second law only applied to thermal energy.

Then I pointed out that energy was energy and all of it obeyed the second law..that no form of energy was exempt whether it be photons or the potential energy stored in a rock sitting atop a hill.

to which you made the absolutely idiotic statement that the word was THERMOdynamics and they called it THERMOdynamics for a reason and the law said nothing about boulders sitting atop a hill as if potential energy were not within the purview of the 2nd law...that is the point at which you proved beyond any doubt that you really don't have a clue..

It was at that point that you somehow conflated that I had argued that the potential energy stored within a rock at the top of a hill somehow had an effect on objects radiating...I never made such a connection..I only stated that all energy was subject to the 2nd law and no form was exempt as you had claimed. This whole idiotic boulder at the top of a hill conversation sprung from your inability to read a sentence, comprehend that it is saying, and keep the meaning of that sentence in your head for more than the time it takes you to form a knee jerk reply.

 

[Wuwei]

Actually, it is you who is wrong, but then you fail so badly at science that I am sure that in your own mind, you are perfectly right....regardless of every observation and measurement ever made...because someone told you so.

Describe the mechanism that makes atoms vibrate, then describe how that vibration is translated into radiation...then describe the mechanism that makes that radiation leave the molecule...then describe the mechanism of that energy movement away from the molecule..and do this without bringing in unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable models...explain it in blunt, provable terms in the same manner as one might describe the workings of a mechanical system.

And by the way...saying that this must vibrate, or that must radiate isn't even beginning to touch on the mechanism of energy movement...the fact that you thought it did is just another example of how much you don't know.

You are asking me to teach you all of science. Go to school and learn something rather than guess.

 

[Wuwei]

Thermodynanmics isn't just concerned with radiation...thermodynamics is concerned with all forms of energy...if you aren't capable of even grasping that basic bit of information, then you really aren't worth talking to..

That's right thermodynamics is concerned with all types of energy, but you haven't a clue why a stationary rock on a hill does not change entropy. A rock rolling down a hill, yes, a stationary rock, no.

Poor goob...can you not get the concept of potential energy in your mind?...thermodynamics is concerned with all energy whether it be potential or kinetic.

You appear to have forgotten why this discussion even started...typical...you lack any sort of focus and fly off on all sorts of tangents in an effort to not be wrong.

I stated that the 2nd law states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...

To which you made the idiotic statement that the second law means that "thermal" energy could not move spontaneously from cool to warm as if the second law only applied to thermal energy.

Then I pointed out that energy was energy and all of it obeyed the second law..that no form of energy was exempt whether it be photons or the potential energy stored in a rock sitting atop a hill.

to which you made the absolutely idiotic statement that the word was THERMOdynamics and they called it THERMOdynamics for a reason and the law said nothing about boulders sitting atop a hill as if potential energy were not within the purview of the 2nd law...that is the point at which you proved beyond any doubt that you really don't have a clue..

It was at that point that you somehow conflated that I had argued that the potential energy stored within a rock at the top of a hill somehow had an effect on objects radiating...I never made such a connection..I only stated that all energy was subject to the 2nd law and no form was exempt as you had claimed. This whole idiotic boulder at the top of a hill conversation sprung from your inability to read a sentence, comprehend that it is saying, and keep the meaning of that sentence in your head for more than the time it takes you to form a knee jerk reply.

My gosh you are still ignorant of what entropy actually is, and you are still saying all science is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, it is you who is wrong, but then you fail so badly at science that I am sure that in your own mind, you are perfectly right....regardless of every observation and measurement ever made...because someone told you so.

Describe the mechanism that makes atoms vibrate, then describe how that vibration is translated into radiation...then describe the mechanism that makes that radiation leave the molecule...then describe the mechanism of that energy movement away from the molecule..and do this without bringing in unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable models...explain it in blunt, provable terms in the same manner as one might describe the workings of a mechanical system.

And by the way...saying that this must vibrate, or that must radiate isn't even beginning to touch on the mechanism of energy movement...the fact that you thought it did is just another example of how much you don't know.

You are asking me to teach you all of science. Go to school and learn something rather than guess.

Laughing in your stupid face....

 

[SSDD]

Thermodynanmics isn't just concerned with radiation...thermodynamics is concerned with all forms of energy...if you aren't capable of even grasping that basic bit of information, then you really aren't worth talking to..

That's right thermodynamics is concerned with all types of energy, but you haven't a clue why a stationary rock on a hill does not change entropy. A rock rolling down a hill, yes, a stationary rock, no.

Poor goob...can you not get the concept of potential energy in your mind?...thermodynamics is concerned with all energy whether it be potential or kinetic.

You appear to have forgotten why this discussion even started...typical...you lack any sort of focus and fly off on all sorts of tangents in an effort to not be wrong.

I stated that the 2nd law states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...

To which you made the idiotic statement that the second law means that "thermal" energy could not move spontaneously from cool to warm as if the second law only applied to thermal energy.

Then I pointed out that energy was energy and all of it obeyed the second law..that no form of energy was exempt whether it be photons or the potential energy stored in a rock sitting atop a hill.

to which you made the absolutely idiotic statement that the word was THERMOdynamics and they called it THERMOdynamics for a reason and the law said nothing about boulders sitting atop a hill as if potential energy were not within the purview of the 2nd law...that is the point at which you proved beyond any doubt that you really don't have a clue..

It was at that point that you somehow conflated that I had argued that the potential energy stored within a rock at the top of a hill somehow had an effect on objects radiating...I never made such a connection..I only stated that all energy was subject to the 2nd law and no form was exempt as you had claimed. This whole idiotic boulder at the top of a hill conversation sprung from your inability to read a sentence, comprehend that it is saying, and keep the meaning of that sentence in your head for more than the time it takes you to form a knee jerk reply.

My gosh you are still ignorant of what entropy actually is, and you are still saying all science is wrong.

I am afraid that it is you who has entropy all wrong...energy, any amount of it moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a more disorganized state (cool) to a more organized state(warm)...now what does entropy say about energy moving from a disorganized state to a more organized state?

 

[Wuwei]

Laughing in your stupid face....

No, you are laughing at your monitor.

I am afraid that it is you who has entropy all wrong...energy, any amount of it moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a more disorganized state (cool) to a more organized state(warm)...now what does entropy say about energy moving from a disorganized state to a more organized state?

It says that a boulder that remains still doesn't change entropy. That is what we were talking about. You keep changing the subject to warm and cool objects. If you don't have anything important to say about it let's just drop the boulder subject, it was another one of your digressions anyway.

 

[SSDD]

Laughing in your stupid face....

No, you are laughing at your monitor.

I am afraid that it is you who has entropy all wrong...energy, any amount of it moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a more disorganized state (cool) to a more organized state(warm)...now what does entropy say about energy moving from a disorganized state to a more organized state?

It says that a boulder that remains still doesn't change entropy. That is what we were talking about. You keep changing the subject to warm and cool objects. If you don't have anything important to say about it let's just drop the boulder subject, it was another one of your digressions anyway.

And yet, the boulder by its very presence upon that incline is chock full of potential energy..

And you still aren't bright enough to separate the boulder from radiation...you can't grasp I was pointing out that all energy obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics...not just thermal energy...you go on harping about the rock as if at some point, you might convince someone that potential energy does not fall under the umbrella of thermodynamics...

As to warm and cool objects, the 2nd law is quite clear...energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...no amount of energy...not even a statistically insignificant amount...it doesn't happen because if it did, that energy in a more disorganized state would be moving to a more organized state and it simply doesn't happen.

 

[Wuwei]

Laughing in your stupid face....

No, you are laughing at your monitor.

I am afraid that it is you who has entropy all wrong...energy, any amount of it moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a more disorganized state (cool) to a more organized state(warm)...now what does entropy say about energy moving from a disorganized state to a more organized state?

It says that a boulder that remains still doesn't change entropy. That is what we were talking about. You keep changing the subject to warm and cool objects. If you don't have anything important to say about it let's just drop the boulder subject, it was another one of your digressions anyway.

And yet, the boulder by its very presence upon that incline is chock full of potential energy..

And you still aren't bright enough to separate the boulder from radiation...you can't grasp I was pointing out that all energy obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics...not just thermal energy...you go on harping about the rock as if at some point, you might convince someone that potential energy does not fall under the umbrella of thermodynamics...

As to warm and cool objects, the 2nd law is quite clear...energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm...no amount of energy...not even a statistically insignificant amount...it doesn't happen because if it did, that energy in a more disorganized state would be moving to a more organized state and it simply doesn't happen.

Still carrying that woman?