Fun global warming experiment!

L

Latrodectus

Guest
Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
water level with the cubes in it.
Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
found?
 
Latrodectus wrote:
> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
> water level with the cubes in it.
> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> found?

BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat left in
the house.

Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....

Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly because only
an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the scientific method could
possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant, stupidly designed, uncontrolled
"experiment" to be in any way, shape or form meaningful. Congratulations!

Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that ISN'T
incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding the ice to
the water lever after the ice is added and has melted, as, moron, the fact
is the VAST majority of surface ice is locked up well ABOVE the water level,
not floating on the surface. Duh, duh, duh, you stupid ****.

It would still be clumsy and not terribly smart, to be sure, just not nearly
as. Of course, you'd never suggest such an experiment because clumsy as it
is, it would STILL too closely mirror reality for a ideological stupid
asshole like you.

Now, perhaps you're not lying or shilling. Perhaps you're just an incredible
imbecile without the slightest clue about that which you fart asinine
nonsense. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I've correct your subject line. You're welcome.

Jaybus Freaking Crisco...

--
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
 
On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
wrote:
> Latrodectus wrote:
> > Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> > pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
> > water level with the cubes in it.
> > Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> > oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> > Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> > the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> > found?
>
> BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat left in
> the house.
>
> Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>
> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>
> Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly because only
> an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the scientific method could
> possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant, stupidly designed, uncontrolled
> "experiment" to be in any way, shape or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>
> Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that ISN'T
> incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding the ice to
> the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,

You don't read very well. I said do exactly that. Measure the water
level without the ice in it, then measure it with the ice in it, then
measure it after the ice has melted. The arctic ice is already
displacing water simply by existing in the ocean. When that ice melts
sea level does not rise. In fact some of it melts every summer and is
reestablished in winter. Overall, the ice is melting more and more,
but the liquid created is simply no longer displacing as the ice does.
If the ice in Antarctica melted it would then be a different story,
as it is on land.

as, moron, the fact
> is the VAST majority of surface ice is locked up well ABOVE the water level,
> not floating on the surface. Duh, duh, duh, you stupid ****.
>

"The vast majority of ice is locked up well above the water level,
not floating on the surface", eh? So you're saying that the arctic
ice is floating in the air. Actually if you put ice cubes in the water
you'll see that most of the ice is UNDER the surface, which means it
is displacing water. Ice doesn't hover on the surface, you ****ing
Jetsons reject.

> It would still be clumsy and not terribly smart, to be sure, just not nearly
> as. Of course, you'd never suggest such an experiment because clumsy as it
> is, it would STILL too closely mirror reality for a ideological stupid
> asshole like you.
>

"...a ideological stupid..."

> Now, perhaps you're not lying or shilling. Perhaps you're just an incredible
> imbecile without the slightest clue about that which you fart asinine
> nonsense. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> BTW, I've correct your subject line. You're welcome.
>

You've correct my subject line?


> Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>
> --
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
 
On Jul 29, 7:39 pm, Latrodectus <e...@elcmedia.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Latrodectus wrote:
> > > Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> > > pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
> > > water level with the cubes in it.
> > > Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> > > oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> > > Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> > > the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> > > found?
>
> > BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat left in
> > the house.
>
> > Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>
> > BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>
> > Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly because only
> > an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the scientific method could
> > possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant, stupidly designed, uncontrolled
> > "experiment" to be in any way, shape or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>
> > Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that ISN'T
> > incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding the ice to
> > the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>
> You don't read very well. I said do exactly that. Measure the water
> level without the ice in it, then measure it with the ice in it, then
> measure it after the ice has melted. The arctic ice is already
> displacing water simply by existing in the ocean. When that ice melts
> sea level does not rise. In fact some of it melts every summer and is
> reestablished in winter. Overall, the ice is melting more and more,
> but the liquid created is simply no longer displacing as the ice does.
> If the ice in Antarctica melted it would then be a different story,
> as it is on land.
>
> as, moron, the fact
>
> > is the VAST majority of surface ice is locked up well ABOVE the water level,
> > not floating on the surface. Duh, duh, duh, you stupid ****.
>
> "The vast majority of ice is locked up well above the water level,
> not floating on the surface", eh? So you're saying that the arctic
> ice is floating in the air. Actually if you put ice cubes in the water
> you'll see that most of the ice is UNDER the surface, which means it
> is displacing water. Ice doesn't hover on the surface, you ****ing
> Jetsons reject.
>
> > It would still be clumsy and not terribly smart, to be sure, just not nearly
> > as. Of course, you'd never suggest such an experiment because clumsy as it
> > is, it would STILL too closely mirror reality for a ideological stupid
> > asshole like you.
>
> "...a ideological stupid..."
>
> > Now, perhaps you're not lying or shilling. Perhaps you're just an incredible
> > imbecile without the slightest clue about that which you fart asinine
> > nonsense. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> > BTW, I've correct your subject line. You're welcome.
>
> You've correct my subject line?
>
>
>
> > Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>
> > --
> > Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> > ------
> > Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> >http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> >
 
"Peter Principle" <petesfeats@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote in message
news:46ad3abe$0$12187$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Latrodectus wrote:
>> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
>> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark
>> the
>> water level with the cubes in it.
>> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
>> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
>> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
>> the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
>> found?
>
> BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat
> left in the house.
>
> Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>
> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>
> Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly because
> only an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the scientific
> method could possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant, stupidly
> designed, uncontrolled "experiment" to be in any way, shape or form
> meaningful. Congratulations!
>
> Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that
> ISN'T incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding
> the ice to the water lever after the ice is added and has melted, as,
> moron, the fact is the VAST majority of surface ice is locked up well
> ABOVE the water level, not floating on the surface. Duh, duh, duh, you
> stupid ****.
>
> It would still be clumsy and not terribly smart, to be sure, just not
> nearly as. Of course, you'd never suggest such an experiment because
> clumsy as it is, it would STILL too closely mirror reality for a
> ideological stupid asshole like you.
>
> Now, perhaps you're not lying or shilling. Perhaps you're just an
> incredible imbecile without the slightest clue about that which you
> fart asinine nonsense. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> BTW, I've correct your subject line. You're welcome.
>
> Jaybus Freaking Crisco...

I laughed so hard I almost pissed my pants.
 
On Jul 29, 7:49 pm, Deathbringer <Deathbringer.2ui...@Off Topic Forum.bbs.local>
wrote:
> Latrodectus;1589140 Wrote:
>
> > Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> > pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
> > water level with the cubes in it.
> > Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> > oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> > Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> > the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> > found?
>
> Out of morbid curiosity, are you parodying every mindless Bushbot out
> there on purpose or do you really not see why people question your
> methodology? It can be hard to tell good acting from an honest lack of
> brainpower over the net.
>

It was a simple and controlled experiment, just for fun. I keep
hearing that if the arctic ice melts then our coastal cities will be
flooded. Forget politics. Try my experiment and see how the water
level does not rise when the ice melts. It's because the ice is
already displacing the water. That is to say, the water level would
be lower without the ice in it. It's as high as it's getting, unless
of course the ice on land, say in Antarctica, melts and enters the
ocean.

> --
> Deathbringer
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Deathbringer's Profile:http://Off Topic Forum.com/member.php?userid=2753
> View this thread:http://Off Topic Forum.com/showthread.php?t=237935
>
> Posted via Forum to Usenet Gateway athttp://Off Topic Forum.com
 
Latrodectus wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Latrodectus wrote:
>>> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
>>> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
>>> water level with the cubes in it.
>>> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
>>> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
>>> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
>>> the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
>>> found?
>> BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat left in
>> the house.
>>
>> Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>>
>> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>>
>> Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly because only
>> an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the scientific method could
>> possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant, stupidly designed, uncontrolled
>> "experiment" to be in any way, shape or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>>
>> Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that ISN'T
>> incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding the ice to
>> the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>
> You don't read very well. I said do exactly that. Measure the water
> level without the ice in it, then measure it with the ice in it, then
> measure it after the ice has melted. The arctic ice is already
> displacing water simply by existing in the ocean. When that ice melts
> sea level does not rise. In fact some of it melts every summer and is
> reestablished in winter. Overall, the ice is melting more and more,
> but the liquid created is simply no longer displacing as the ice does.

Holy **** you are a riot. This is not garden variety stupidity you
demonstrate. It's truly a work of art and doesn't happen all that
often. Please continue, if only for the entertainment value.


> If the ice in Antarctica melted it would then be a different story,
> as it is on land.
>
> as, moron, the fact
>> is the VAST majority of surface ice is locked up well ABOVE the water level,
>> not floating on the surface. Duh, duh, duh, you stupid ****.
>>
>
> "The vast majority of ice is locked up well above the water level,
> not floating on the surface", eh? So you're saying that the arctic
> ice is floating in the air. Actually if you put ice cubes in the water
> you'll see that most of the ice is UNDER the surface, which means it
> is displacing water. Ice doesn't hover on the surface, you ****ing
> Jetsons reject.

Here you go again, **** I can't keep from laughing. You are truly a
world class imbecile. There's lots of land in the Arctic, moron. I've
been there and seen it. I suppose now you're going to tell me that the
dirt I walked on was really just some form of brown ice and all the
glaciers that exist in the Arctic are really just sitting on top of more
ice.

>
>> It would still be clumsy and not terribly smart, to be sure, just not nearly
>> as. Of course, you'd never suggest such an experiment because clumsy as it
>> is, it would STILL too closely mirror reality for a ideological stupid
>> asshole like you.
>>
>
> "...a ideological stupid..."
>
>> Now, perhaps you're not lying or shilling. Perhaps you're just an incredible
>> imbecile without the slightest clue about that which you fart asinine
>> nonsense. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>>
>> BTW, I've correct your subject line. You're welcome.
>>
>
> You've correct my subject line?
>
>
>> Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>>
>> --
>> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
>> ------
>> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>>
>> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>>
 
Latrodectus wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Latrodectus wrote:
>>> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
>>> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark
>>> the water level with the cubes in it.
>>> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
>>> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
>>> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to
>>> some, the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what
>>> you found?
>>
>> BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat
>> left in the house.
>>
>> Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>>
>> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>>
>> Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly
>> because only an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the
>> scientific method could possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant,
>> stupidly designed, uncontrolled "experiment" to be in any way, shape
>> or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>>
>> Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that
>> ISN'T incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding
>> the ice to the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>
> You don't read very well. I said do exactly that.

<snip of incredible idiocy, lagniappe>

You don't think very well, much less read well, Ms. Latella. My suggestion
was NOT, repeat, you stupid asshole, NOT what you said AT ALL. Not even
close, you stupid asshole.

Now, pay attention, you stupid asshole, and use your finger to follow along.
I suggested...

1. Measure water level without ice.
2. Add ice, allow to melt.
3. Measure water level again.

Now, you stupid asshole, as anyone with a triple digit IQ can easily see,
your experiment was NOT the above detailed experiment. Your, er "experiment"
is nothing more than an experiment in terminal stupidity. And you've
demonstrated it beyond any possible doubt, you stupid ****. Congratulations!

FYI, you stupid ****, arctic ice DOES NOT float at water level, hence, you
stupid ****, the terms PACK ice and PANCAKE ice. You see, you stupid ****,
the fact of the matter is the ice PACK is, in many places, twenty ****ing
meters thick, ALL of it above sea level. It is formed over YEARS, mainly
through snowfall.

In point of fact, arctic ice rests in a PACK suspended ON TOP of the water,
you stupid ****, not, repeat, you stupid ****, NOT floating IN the water
like an ice cube. The density of arctic ice, you see, moron, is MUCH LESS
than that of an ice cube and spread over a huge area.

Ergo, you stupid ****, when the PACK ice melts, water levels do, indeed, go
UP. This is what is known in technical circles as an undisputed, long
observed, unanimously corroborated FACT. Duh, duh, duh, you stupid ****.

Jaybus Freaking Crisco...

You could be more of an incredible idiot, but it's going to take a lot of
hard work and dedication.

--
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
 
Peter Principle wrote:

> Latrodectus wrote:
>
>>On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Latrodectus wrote:
>>>
>>>>Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
>>>>pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark
>>>>the water level with the cubes in it.
>>>> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
>>>>oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
>>>> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to
>>>>some, the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what
>>>>you found?
>>>
>>>BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat
>>>left in the house.
>>>
>>>Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>>>
>>>BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>>>
>>>Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly
>>>because only an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the
>>>scientific method could possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant,
>>>stupidly designed, uncontrolled "experiment" to be in any way, shape
>>>or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>>>
>>>Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that
>>>ISN'T incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding
>>>the ice to the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>>
>>You don't read very well. I said do exactly that.
>
>
> <snip of incredible idiocy, lagniappe>
>
> You don't think very well, much less read well, Ms. Latella. My suggestion
> was NOT, repeat, you stupid asshole, NOT what you said AT ALL. Not even
> close, you stupid asshole.
>
> Now, pay attention, you stupid asshole, and use your finger to follow along.
> I suggested...
>
> 1. Measure water level without ice.
> 2. Add ice, allow to melt.
> 3. Measure water level again.
>
> Now, you stupid asshole, as anyone with a triple digit IQ can easily see,
> your experiment was NOT the above detailed experiment.

Which, in and of itself, is a rather stupid experiment.
 
Latrodectus wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:49 pm, Deathbringer <Deathbringer.2ui...@Off Topic Forum.bbs.local>
> wrote:
>> Latrodectus;1589140 Wrote:
>>
>>> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
>>> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark
>>> the water level with the cubes in it.
>>> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
>>> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
>>> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
>>> the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
>>> found?
>>
>> Out of morbid curiosity, are you parodying every mindless Bushbot out
>> there on purpose or do you really not see why people question your
>> methodology? It can be hard to tell good acting from an honest lack
>> of brainpower over the net.
>>
>
> It was a simple and controlled experiment, just for fun. I keep
> hearing that if the arctic ice melts then our coastal cities will be
> flooded. Forget politics. Try my experiment and see how the water
> level does not rise when the ice melts. It's because the ice is
> already displacing the water. That is to say, the water level would
> be lower without the ice in it. It's as high as it's getting, unless
> of course the ice on land, say in Antarctica, melts and enters the
> ocean.

<snort>

Yep, he really is every bit THAT ****ing stupid, as unlikely as that may
be...

--
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
 
Latrodectus <eric@elcmedia.com> wrote in news:1185756361.405047.19570
@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
> water level with the cubes in it.
> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> found?
>

Last I looked a lot ot the ice is on land masses like the antartic and
greenland and the sea is salt water - not fresh water - while much of the
ice is freshwater and rides high in the water and displaces much less
water.

Thus endith the lesson.
 
On Jul 29, 8:05 pm, Nebuchadnezzar II <Nebuchadnez...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Latrodectus wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Latrodectus wrote:
> >>> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> >>> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
> >>> water level with the cubes in it.
> >>> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> >>> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> >>> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> >>> the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> >>> found?
> >> BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat left in
> >> the house.
>
> >> Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>
> >> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>
> >> Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly because only
> >> an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the scientific method could
> >> possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant, stupidly designed, uncontrolled
> >> "experiment" to be in any way, shape or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>
> >> Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that ISN'T
> >> incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding the ice to
> >> the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>
> > You don't read very well. I said do exactly that. Measure the water
> > level without the ice in it, then measure it with the ice in it, then
> > measure it after the ice has melted. The arctic ice is already
> > displacing water simply by existing in the ocean. When that ice melts
> > sea level does not rise. In fact some of it melts every summer and is
> > reestablished in winter. Overall, the ice is melting more and more,
> > but the liquid created is simply no longer displacing as the ice does.
>
> Holy **** you are a riot. This is not garden variety stupidity you
> demonstrate. It's truly a work of art and doesn't happen all that
> often. Please continue, if only for the entertainment value.
>
> > If the ice in Antarctica melted it would then be a different story,
> > as it is on land.
>
> > as, moron, the fact
> >> is the VAST majority of surface ice is locked up well ABOVE the water level,
> >> not floating on the surface. Duh, duh, duh, you stupid ****.
>
> > "The vast majority of ice is locked up well above the water level,
> > not floating on the surface", eh? So you're saying that the arctic
> > ice is floating in the air. Actually if you put ice cubes in the water
> > you'll see that most of the ice is UNDER the surface, which means it
> > is displacing water. Ice doesn't hover on the surface, you ****ing
> > Jetsons reject.
>
> Here you go again, **** I can't keep from laughing. You are truly a
> world class imbecile. There's lots of land in the Arctic, moron. I've
> been there and seen it. I suppose now you're going to tell me that the
> dirt I walked on was really just some form of brown ice and all the
> glaciers that exist in the Arctic are really just sitting on top of more
> ice.
>

Here is a map of the Arctic region:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Arctic.svg

How much is land, how much is water, how much ice on the ocean?
Please note that I said 'arctic ice" in relation to the water it is
in. I did say that if we were talking about ice melting on land, such
as in Antarctica, that it would be a different story. You chose to
ignore that, as you saw an opportunity to call somebody an imbecile
and a moron. Was I wrong for pointing out that if ice from land
melted it would have a different effect than from ice on water
melting? Nope.
I have seen the evidence of evolution, too. I guess that makes me a
moron and an imbecile, and a 'rightard idiot", as well, according to
Peter Principle. I never said global warming wasn't real, you ****ing
jackass. I never said that the human species didn't have an
influence, you ****ing jackass. I said that ice displaces water, you
****ing jackass, and I was right, you ****ing jackass.

>
>
> >> It would still be clumsy and not terribly smart, to be sure, just not nearly
> >> as. Of course, you'd never suggest such an experiment because clumsy as it
> >> is, it would STILL too closely mirror reality for a ideological stupid
> >> asshole like you.
>
> > "...a ideological stupid..."
>
> >> Now, perhaps you're not lying or shilling. Perhaps you're just an incredible
> >> imbecile without the slightest clue about that which you fart asinine
> >> nonsense. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> >> BTW, I've correct your subject line. You're welcome.
>
> > You've correct my subject line?
>
> >> Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>
> >> --
> >> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> >> ------
> >> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> >>http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> >>
 
On Jul 29, 8:07 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
wrote:
> Latrodectus wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Latrodectus wrote:
> >>> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> >>> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark
> >>> the water level with the cubes in it.
> >>> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> >>> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> >>> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to
> >>> some, the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what
> >>> you found?
>
> >> BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat
> >> left in the house.
>
> >> Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>
> >> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>
> >> Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly
> >> because only an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the
> >> scientific method could possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant,
> >> stupidly designed, uncontrolled "experiment" to be in any way, shape
> >> or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>
> >> Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that
> >> ISN'T incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding
> >> the ice to the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>
> > You don't read very well. I said do exactly that.
>
> <snip of incredible idiocy, lagniappe>
>
> You don't think very well, much less read well, Ms. Latella. My suggestion
> was NOT, repeat, you stupid asshole, NOT what you said AT ALL. Not even
> close, you stupid asshole.
>
> Now, pay attention, you stupid asshole, and use your finger to follow along.
> I suggested...
>
> 1. Measure water level without ice.

I did that.

> 2. Add ice, allow to melt.

I did that.

> 3. Measure water level again.

I did that. The level was higher. It was also the same level as with
the ice in it before the ice had melted.

>
> Now, you stupid asshole, as anyone with a triple digit IQ can easily see,
> your experiment was NOT the above detailed experiment.

It was exactly that experiment.

Your, er "experiment"
> is nothing more than an experiment in terminal stupidity. And you've
> demonstrated it beyond any possible doubt, you stupid ****. Congratulations!
>
> FYI, you stupid ****, arctic ice DOES NOT float at water level, hence, you
> stupid ****, the terms PACK ice and PANCAKE ice. You see, you stupid ****,
> the fact of the matter is the ice PACK is, in many places, twenty ****ing
> meters thick, ALL of it above sea level. It is formed over YEARS, mainly
> through snowfall.
>
> In point of fact, arctic ice rests in a PACK suspended ON TOP of the water,
> you stupid ****, not, repeat, you stupid ****, NOT floating IN the water
> like an ice cube. The density of arctic ice, you see, moron, is MUCH LESS
> than that of an ice cube and spread over a huge area.
>

Wikipedia pack ice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_ice
You say it is not floating in the water, here is what the article
says which agrees with you:
"Drift ice consists of sea ice that floats on the surface of the
water...When the drift ice is driven together into a large single
mass, it is called pack ice. Typically areas of pack ice are
identified by high percentage of surface coverage by ice: e.g.,
80-100%."
Look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs
Scroll down and see the two images on the right that show the extent
of the ice pack, September 78-2002 vs February for the same range.
That's quite a difference. Where are the flooded cities?
BTW did your dad beat your or something? You sure are negative.
I'm trying to learn this stuff and even do experiments and your
reaction is spewing hate. If I told you that evolution was real you'd
still find some way to spew your filth.

> Ergo, you stupid ****, when the PACK ice melts, water levels do, indeed, go
> UP. This is what is known in technical circles as an undisputed, long
> observed, unanimously corroborated FACT. Duh, duh, duh, you stupid ****.
>
> Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>
> You could be more of an incredible idiot, but it's going to take a lot of
> hard work and dedication.
>
> --
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
 
On Jul 29, 8:09 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Peter Principle wrote:
> > Latrodectus wrote:
>
> >>On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>Latrodectus wrote:
>
> >>>>Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> >>>>pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark
> >>>>the water level with the cubes in it.
> >>>> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> >>>>oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> >>>> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to
> >>>>some, the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what
> >>>>you found?
>
> >>>BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat
> >>>left in the house.
>
> >>>Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>
> >>>BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>
> >>>Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly
> >>>because only an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the
> >>>scientific method could possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant,
> >>>stupidly designed, uncontrolled "experiment" to be in any way, shape
> >>>or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>
> >>>Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that
> >>>ISN'T incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding
> >>>the ice to the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>
> >>You don't read very well. I said do exactly that.
>
> > <snip of incredible idiocy, lagniappe>
>
> > You don't think very well, much less read well, Ms. Latella. My suggestion
> > was NOT, repeat, you stupid asshole, NOT what you said AT ALL. Not even
> > close, you stupid asshole.
>
> > Now, pay attention, you stupid asshole, and use your finger to follow along.
> > I suggested...
>
> > 1. Measure water level without ice.
> > 2. Add ice, allow to melt.
> > 3. Measure water level again.
>
> > Now, you stupid asshole, as anyone with a triple digit IQ can easily see,
> > your experiment was NOT the above detailed experiment.
>
> Which, in and of itself, is a rather stupid experiment.

It's stupid for people like you who know everything.
 
On Jul 29, 8:11 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
wrote:
> Latrodectus wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 7:49 pm, Deathbringer <Deathbringer.2ui...@Off Topic Forum.bbs.local>
> > wrote:
> >> Latrodectus;1589140 Wrote:
>
> >>> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> >>> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark
> >>> the water level with the cubes in it.
> >>> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> >>> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> >>> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> >>> the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> >>> found?
>
> >> Out of morbid curiosity, are you parodying every mindless Bushbot out
> >> there on purpose or do you really not see why people question your
> >> methodology? It can be hard to tell good acting from an honest lack
> >> of brainpower over the net.
>
> > It was a simple and controlled experiment, just for fun. I keep
> > hearing that if the arctic ice melts then our coastal cities will be
> > flooded. Forget politics. Try my experiment and see how the water
> > level does not rise when the ice melts. It's because the ice is
> > already displacing the water. That is to say, the water level would
> > be lower without the ice in it. It's as high as it's getting, unless
> > of course the ice on land, say in Antarctica, melts and enters the
> > ocean.
>
> <snort>
>
> Yep, he really is every bit THAT ****ing stupid, as unlikely as that may
> be...
>

Just because you know about pack ice doesn't mean everybody does.
Sheesh.

> --
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
 
On Jul 29, 8:25 pm, Gene <Ch...@home.net> wrote:
> Latrodectus <e...@elcmedia.com> wrote in news:1185756361.405047.19570
> @z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> > pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
> > water level with the cubes in it.
> > Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> > oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> > Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> > the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> > found?
>
> Last I looked a lot ot the ice is on land masses like the antartic and
> greenland and the sea is salt water - not fresh water - while much of the
> ice is freshwater and rides high in the water and displaces much less
> water.
>
> Thus endith the lesson.

Thanks for not calling me an idiot. And I DID point out that there
was ice on land.
 
On Jul 29, 6:46 pm, Latrodectus <e...@elcmedia.com> wrote:
> Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
> water level with the cubes in it.
> Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> found?

OK, dumb experiment. Is it normal to suffer such abuse when learning
something?
 
Latrodectus wrote:

> On Jul 29, 8:09 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Peter Principle wrote:
>>
>>>Latrodectus wrote:
>>
>>>>On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>Latrodectus wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
>>>>>>pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark
>>>>>>the water level with the cubes in it.
>>>>>>Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
>>>>>>oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
>>>>>>Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to
>>>>>>some, the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what
>>>>>>you found?
>>
>>>>>BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat
>>>>>left in the house.
>>
>>>>>Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>>
>>>>>BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>>
>>>>>Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly
>>>>>because only an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the
>>>>>scientific method could possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant,
>>>>>stupidly designed, uncontrolled "experiment" to be in any way, shape
>>>>>or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>>
>>>>>Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that
>>>>>ISN'T incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding
>>>>>the ice to the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>>
>>>>You don't read very well. I said do exactly that.
>>
>>><snip of incredible idiocy, lagniappe>
>>
>>>You don't think very well, much less read well, Ms. Latella. My suggestion
>>>was NOT, repeat, you stupid asshole, NOT what you said AT ALL. Not even
>>>close, you stupid asshole.
>>
>>>Now, pay attention, you stupid asshole, and use your finger to follow along.
>>>I suggested...
>>
>>>1. Measure water level without ice.
>>>2. Add ice, allow to melt.
>>>3. Measure water level again.
>>
>>>Now, you stupid asshole, as anyone with a triple digit IQ can easily see,
>>>your experiment was NOT the above detailed experiment.
>>
>>Which, in and of itself, is a rather stupid experiment.
>
>
> It's stupid for people like you who know everything.

It's stupid, period.

1. Measure water level
2. Add water
3. Measure water level
 
On Jul 29, 9:13 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Latrodectus wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 8:09 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Peter Principle wrote:
>
> >>>Latrodectus wrote:
>
> >>>>On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>Latrodectus wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> >>>>>>pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark
> >>>>>>the water level with the cubes in it.
> >>>>>>Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> >>>>>>oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> >>>>>>Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to
> >>>>>>some, the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what
> >>>>>>you found?
>
> >>>>>BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat
> >>>>>left in the house.
>
> >>>>>Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>
> >>>>>BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>
> >>>>>Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly
> >>>>>because only an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the
> >>>>>scientific method could possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant,
> >>>>>stupidly designed, uncontrolled "experiment" to be in any way, shape
> >>>>>or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>
> >>>>>Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that
> >>>>>ISN'T incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding
> >>>>>the ice to the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>
> >>>>You don't read very well. I said do exactly that.
>
> >>><snip of incredible idiocy, lagniappe>
>
> >>>You don't think very well, much less read well, Ms. Latella. My suggestion
> >>>was NOT, repeat, you stupid asshole, NOT what you said AT ALL. Not even
> >>>close, you stupid asshole.
>
> >>>Now, pay attention, you stupid asshole, and use your finger to follow along.
> >>>I suggested...
>
> >>>1. Measure water level without ice.
> >>>2. Add ice, allow to melt.
> >>>3. Measure water level again.
>
> >>>Now, you stupid asshole, as anyone with a triple digit IQ can easily see,
> >>>your experiment was NOT the above detailed experiment.
>
> >>Which, in and of itself, is a rather stupid experiment.
>
> > It's stupid for people like you who know everything.
>
> It's stupid, period.
>
> 1. Measure water level
> 2. Add water
> 3. Measure water level

That's what I did. I made the mistake of assuming displacement would
be the same with salt water. Do you know everything? You don't?
Then don't call me stupid for making the efforts to find things out.
 
On Jul 29, 7:47 pm, jose <josefsop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:39 pm, Latrodectus <e...@elcmedia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 7:12 pm, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Latrodectus wrote:
> > > > Take a glass and fill it halfway with water. Mark that point with a
> > > > pen or perhaps with some tape. Now add a few ice cubes, then mark the
> > > > water level with the cubes in it.
> > > > Please wait several minutes. You may optionally use a microwave
> > > > oven to help speed the melting if you are impatient.
> > > > Mark the level of the water after the ice melts. According to some,
> > > > the water level should rise when the ice melts. Is that what you
> > > > found?
>
> > > BWA HA HA HA HA, whew! Cut it out! There ain't gonna be a dry seat left in
> > > the house.
>
> > > Man, you rightard idiots are truly a ****ing HOOT!
>
> > > BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA....
>
> > > Nobody has done anything like that, conservadolt moron, mainly because only
> > > an incredible imbecile completely ignorant of the scientific method could
> > > possibly consider such a wholly irrelevant, stupidly designed, uncontrolled
> > > "experiment" to be in any way, shape or form meaningful. Congratulations!
>
> > > Now, if you wish to frame your facile experiment in methodology that ISN'T
> > > incredibly stupid, you'd compare the water lever BEFORE adding the ice to
> > > the water lever after the ice is added and has melted,
>
> > You don't read very well. I said do exactly that. Measure the water
> > level without the ice in it, then measure it with the ice in it, then
> > measure it after the ice has melted. The arctic ice is already
> > displacing water simply by existing in the ocean. When that ice melts
> > sea level does not rise. In fact some of it melts every summer and is
> > reestablished in winter. Overall, the ice is melting more and more,
> > but the liquid created is simply no longer displacing as the ice does.
> > If the ice in Antarctica melted it would then be a different story,
> > as it is on land.
>
> > as, moron, the fact
>
> > > is the VAST majority of surface ice is locked up well ABOVE the water level,
> > > not floating on the surface. Duh, duh, duh, you stupid ****.
>
> > "The vast majority of ice is locked up well above the water level,
> > not floating on the surface", eh? So you're saying that the arctic
> > ice is floating in the air. Actually if you put ice cubes in the water
> > you'll see that most of the ice is UNDER the surface, which means it
> > is displacing water. Ice doesn't hover on the surface, you ****ing
> > Jetsons reject.
>
> > > It would still be clumsy and not terribly smart, to be sure, just not nearly
> > > as. Of course, you'd never suggest such an experiment because clumsy as it
> > > is, it would STILL too closely mirror reality for a ideological stupid
> > > asshole like you.
>
> > "...a ideological stupid..."
>
> > > Now, perhaps you're not lying or shilling. Perhaps you're just an incredible
> > > imbecile without the slightest clue about that which you fart asinine
> > > nonsense. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> > > BTW, I've correct your subject line. You're welcome.
>
> > You've correct my subject line?
>
> > > Jaybus Freaking Crisco...
>
> > > --
> > > Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> > > ------
> > > Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> > >http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> > >
 

Similar threads

WorldNews
Some fish tackle ocean global warming by pretending it's night
Replies
0
Views
21
WorldNews
WorldNews
N
Politics - Warming ocean could melt ice faster than thought
Replies
0
Views
28
NewsBot
N
Q
Composite Decking: A Smooth Move in Decking
Replies
0
Views
142
qizhenkim
Q
DaMan
LG unveils Optimus 3D Max Android phone ahead of MWC
Replies
0
Views
93
DaMan
DaMan
DaMan
Verizon unveils DROID RAZR by Motorola, pre-orders begin October 27th for $299.99
Replies
0
Views
204
DaMan
DaMan
Back
Top