Patrick is a mid-40 year old geek with an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a master's degree in Information Systems. Nothing he says here has anything to do with the official position of his employer or any other institution.


  1. Awesome site.

    Tangential but disaster related: Does anyone know how high the water would rise if the ice on Antarctica/Greenland/etc were to melt?

    (In accordance with Mindiv policy, this is *not* a query about political views on climate change and what we should do about it. I’m just asking, if it were to happen in such a way to cause meltage, what would we be looking at in terms of water riseage?)

    • That’s easy enough to answer. Zero.

      The entire continent of Antarctica could melt and there would be zero rise in water level. Tell you what, go to your kitchen, grab a glass and fill it with water. Next, drop a ice cube into the glass–mark the level of water after the ice is dropped in and then get back to the League and let us know how much the water level rose after the ice cube melted.

      Any floating object displaces its own weight of fluid.

      —Archimedes of Syracuse[2]

      buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid.

      I don’t know about you, but I’m buying land in Greenland to start a citrus and banana farm. Global warming can’t happen soon enough. It sure didn’t bother the Vikings at all. If we had to live on a planet with Los Angeles like weather year round, I think we’d adjust just fine.

      • Any floating object displaces its own weight of fluid.

        The ice on top of Antarctica isn’t floating. It’s sitting on land.

        • “Land” just happens to be a 7,000 foot ice shelf.
          It doesn’t matter if it’s floating or not. The principle remains unchanged. Why is everyone so worried about the earth? It’s not going anywhere. She’s been around for five billion years or so and has had to weather a few Ice Ages and Warm Ages and she always comes out smelling like a rose. If some people think changing their silly light bulbs or getting a car that can get 10 more miles to a gallon is going to be our salvation and “save” our planet, then go ahead. Who wants to chip in and help Gore pay his $10,000 a month electric bill? And buying carbon offsets has to be the most asinine, nonsensical hoax of all–it just reeks of Hollywood limousine liberalism which could gag a maggot. The dirtiest little secret is this: oil and coal are inexhaustible sources of energy. Yes, we’ll NEVER run out. Gore and Begeley might but we’re talking about the sane members of the human race.

          • Are you suggesting Antarctica is nothing but ice? Because if so, you are wrong. Antarctica is actual continent with a substantial above-sea-level land mass. And if all that ice melts, much of the water will end up in the ocean.

          • Greetings, James K. No, I’m not suggesting that. When your average temperature is -35 degrees, it’s pretty hard to start making snowballs out of an ice shelf that is 7,000 deep.

            The fact of the matter is, the ice is increasing at an extraordinary rate and is not being reported because the slimy crackpot hands at the UN want to feed at the trough and suck every last penny out of this entirely fabricated crisis, global warming, global change or whatever the hell theses hare-brained, greedy imbeciles want to call it. Hoax is the best word to describe their chicanery, I think.
            I mean just take a quick look at the story from the Geophysical Research Group:

            “The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

            Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

            A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.”

            Yes, you read it correctly–there has been less ice melt in that 30 year period than in all of recorded history!

            I’d suggest you check out the reality of this bombshell of a hoax at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The UN would be immediately closed and shuttered tomorrow. It appears there is enough space and room in those Hamas underground tunnels to house these distinguished diplomats–you just need to get the Hamas terrorists to stop firing missiles at Israeli citizens.

          • There are, in fact, plenty of other threads to harp on about this topic.

            This was a meteor simulator, for cryin’ out loud.

        • Pat and Jaybird, understood. I have no problem leaving politics out of the discussions on this site. None at all. As a matter of fact, I think it’s a very refreshing break. The only reason I brought it up was because the first comments on this thread by Will were about Greenland and Antarctica melting and the consequences that would have on sea levels. It appears I prematurely jumped on those comments before carefully reading the following paragraph in which he said, (In accordance with Mindiv policy, this is *not* a query about political views on climate change and what we should do about it.)

          Mea culpa, mea culpa. Apologies to both of you. You were right and I was wrong. I shall abide by, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. I shall also abide by the policy of posting no more than once a day. What is the protocol when a very heated political discussion is taking place in a politically free zone/thread? Are the rules tossed out the window and anything goes? Of course, it doesn’t have to be heated to be in violation of Jaybird’s rules of leaving politics at the door.

  2. If the ice of antarctica melts, there will be a significant sea level rise. Many say that a rise of 31-72 cm will have little effect and thats fine when you live tens of metres or more above sea level. Obviously for those living next to oceans/seas or rivers affected by tidal backup then it can be, and IS significant now. Humanity wants to live in these areas for varying reasons including transport, food, aesthetics etc. There are many communities now experiencing these effects, exacerbated by storm systems, inland (rain) and at sea with increased wave activity. As the ice melts in the Antarctic (2-3 km thick), weight reduces and allows the continent beneath to rise up on the mantle upon which it floats further displacing seawater. This rebound effect is geologically recognized and is common sense if contemplated. As this rebound effect occurs, seismic activity increases locally and distantly, producing further disruption. As glacial ice sheets at the ocean break away, the glacier is able to move faster down its rocky bed. This melting/freezing cycle does recur but is not always a slow process, it can be quite rapid (Mammoths and other mammals snap frozen with temperate grass/pollen in mouths/stomach undigested in siberia/Alaska) and this may be accounted for by either fast continental motion produced by the effect noted above as well as the rotational axis centre drifting around the Nth + Sth poles. A few people may recall the re-numbering of various airport runways (2010-2011) as a result of the magnetic pole drifting as well. The rate of drift for each has increased dramatically in the last 20 years compared to the preceding 100 yrs. Whether the present changes are due to human activity or a part of natural cycle, decreasing the negative impact of human excess to the environment for others as well as ourselves seems to be a logical step. I for one dont want to see rainforests turned to a wasteland for timber which may then be turned into short term monoculture. But having grown up on property in Australia which was marginal but still somewhat productive, vast areas of this”productive” land is now being taken over by coal seam gas fracking that degrades the land further as well as consuming massive amounts of water (in an area where water is minimal) that is mixed with many chemicals making it non-recyclabe AND pumping that underground in close proximity to aquifiers. We are told the aquifiers are not at risk by the mining fraternity, but this has been shown to be wrong in many areas in USA, along with seismic events directly attributable to the fracking process. Our planet is alresdy short on farming land and to turn this over to mining that degrades both land and water is not logical. Each of us that can reduce our energy consumption not only reduces the need for energy production, but may influence others to do likewise. Humanity will always have its polarized groups that can be segregated in many different ways to prove almost any thesis/philosophy, but in this discussion a few key groups can hold sway over the future of many.
    Egocentric – those that don’t give a rats arse about anyone else including there own offspring as long as they get what they want now and can live as comfortably as is possible whether that be as long as they can at the expense of others or “die young ,stay pretty “crowd, (Hedonistic, fukkemall).
    Altruistic – those, that no matter their own level of personal comfort and ownership, are prepared to help wherever and whenever they can.
    Everyone is on this scale somewhere, your choice, you influence others.

  3. PS. apologies for harsh tones, all could be well. Don’t count your friends, multiply them without reckoning or tally. When you leave this shell of dust and water, either you exist or you don’t.
    If you don’t, nothing matters except the emotions you generate around you through your actions, words and feelings whilst you are inhabiting said shell. The memories and consequences of the choices you make, last longer then your shell and therefore, logically, constitute a remaining energy focus on who you “were”. The entirety of this energy focus may have the physical force of the breeze from the wing of a butterfly, more or less, and some are aware how inconsequential this may be.
    Alternatively, if “you” continue to exist with a new, different shell, or perhaps without the need of a shell at all, then, logically, would not this existence be influenced by your history (if time exists) and the continuing regard of your past acquaintances.
    There are some that consider this next awareness is strongly moulded by how you expect it to be, if so, the lighter your conscience, the easier to hope f0r a more positive existence, logically.
    (Maybe there are too many “ifs”)
    Righto, no more comments from me, untill at least 5 other posts.

  4. 10,000 yrs ago, last ice melt (comet/asteroid? = 100 metre sea level rise, = woe.
    Am I alone in here? ere? re? Do I detect an echo? cho? ho?
    Is There Anybody Out There? etc.
    Sorry, I fear I’ve inadvertently killed this site
    Has philosophy perished or maybe gone underground?

Comments are closed.