independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 19th Aug 2018 5:10am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Monday Fun Fact: Can humans melt Antarctica?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 3 123>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/23/18 7:48am

TweetyV6

avatar

Monday Fun Fact: Can humans melt Antarctica?

Yes we can.
It only takes about 103,500 years (give or take a few) though lol

In 2016 'The world' produced 84.412479 quadrillion (84.412479*10^15) BTU (British Thermal Units) o energy which converts to 8.906*10^19 Joules
(source)

Per the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Antarctica contains about 30 million km3 of ice.
(source)
Equaling

It takes 333.55 kJ to melt 1 kg of ice. (physical property) which translates to 3.07*10^17 J to melt a cubic km of ice.


So, for Antarctica, we need 3.07*10^17 J * 30*10^6 km3 = 9.21*10^24 J to melt everything.


How many years would it take if we use all energy produced by humans to melt all the antartic ice?

9.21*10^24 J ÷ 8.906*10^19 J/year = 103,413.43 years.

Provided the ice will already be at its melting point.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/23/18 8:27am

13cjk13

So, lets get cracking!!! Lets try and fuck this world harder, at a faster pace!!

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/23/18 8:33am

RodeoSchro

avatar

We'll all be flooded well before Antarctica is fully melted. That's the problem.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/23/18 8:33am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Let's quit buring carbon right now. Tweety is on it.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/23/18 10:07am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

13cjk13 said:

So, lets get cracking!!! Lets try and fuck this world harder, at a faster pace!!


nod I think I read something about it in Voxx 2014. wink

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/23/18 10:59am

13cjk13

DiminutiveRocker said:

13cjk13 said:

So, lets get cracking!!! Lets try and fuck this world harder, at a faster pace!!


nod I think I read something about it in Voxx 2014. wink

Thank god you wrote only one sentence, I didnt have ANY trouble understanding you!

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/23/18 1:35pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

Yes we can.
It only takes about 103,500 years (give or take a few) though lol

In 2016 'The world' produced 84.412479 quadrillion (84.412479*10^15) BTU (British Thermal Units) o energy which converts to 8.906*10^19 Joules
(source)

Per the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Antarctica contains about 30 million km3 of ice.
(source)
Equaling

It takes 333.55 kJ to melt 1 kg of ice. (physical property) which translates to 3.07*10^17 J to melt a cubic km of ice.


So, for Antarctica, we need 3.07*10^17 J * 30*10^6 km3 = 9.21*10^24 J to melt everything.


How many years would it take if we use all energy produced by humans to melt all the antartic ice?

9.21*10^24 J ÷ 8.906*10^19 J/year = 103,413.43 years.

Provided the ice will already be at its melting point.

.

We can do it a lot quicker by damaging the environment so it traps more of the sun's heat than by redirecting only all the world's energy used to produce electricity to directly melting the ice.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/23/18 10:32pm

TweetyV6

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

We'll all be flooded well before Antarctica is fully melted. That's the problem.

Nah...
Sea level will rise approx. 70m (230ft)

Costal cities will have a problem, but you can still enjoy the sun in Phoenix.
Plenty of space will still be habitable.

It wouldn't affect me as my house is situated 120m above sea level.
But it would take me about 15 minutes to get to the beach instead of a 2 hrs drive now lol




For the US: All light and dark blue areas would be flooded.
All purple, red, orange, yellow and green would still be habitable.

?cz=US_1

[Edited 7/23/18 22:38pm]

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/23/18 10:46pm

TweetyV6

avatar

13cjk13 said:

So, lets get cracking!!! Lets try and fuck this world harder, at a faster pace!!


My point: we can't fuck the world. Even if we try to do it with all the energy we create and use it for nothing else then trying to melt the antarctic ice sheet.

We're insignificant fuckers

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/23/18 10:54pm

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:

Yes we can.
It only takes about 103,500 years (give or take a few) though lol

In 2016 'The world' produced 84.412479 quadrillion (84.412479*10^15) BTU (British Thermal Units) o energy which converts to 8.906*10^19 Joules
(source)

Per the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Antarctica contains about 30 million km3 of ice.
(source)
Equaling

It takes 333.55 kJ to melt 1 kg of ice. (physical property) which translates to 3.07*10^17 J to melt a cubic km of ice.


So, for Antarctica, we need 3.07*10^17 J * 30*10^6 km3 = 9.21*10^24 J to melt everything.


How many years would it take if we use all energy produced by humans to melt all the antartic ice?

9.21*10^24 J ÷ 8.906*10^19 J/year = 103,413.43 years.

Provided the ice will already be at its melting point.

.

We can do it a lot quicker by damaging the environment so it traps more of the sun's heat than by redirecting only all the world's energy used to produce electricity to directly melting the ice.


Nah....
It will only warm the atmosphere a bit more.

Ask yourself following question: If an ice sculpture stands in a room at 40F how long would it take for the ice sculpture to melt? And how long would it take if I would put it in water of the same volume and temperature as the room?

Would there be any difference in time before all the ice has been turned to water, you guess?

I would be worried more about geothermal heat sources; volcanoes under the ice.
They recently discovered ...w(!!) ones


___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/23/18 10:57pm

TweetyV6

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

13cjk13 said:

So, lets get cracking!!! Lets try and fuck this world harder, at a faster pace!!


nod I think I read something about it in Voxx 2014. wink


lol That will haunt me forever, right?

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/23/18 11:58pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

We can do it a lot quicker by damaging the environment so it traps more of the sun's heat than by redirecting only all the world's energy used to produce electricity to directly melting the ice.


Nah....
It will only warm the atmosphere a bit more.

Ask yourself following question: If an ice sculpture stands in a room at 40F how long would it take for the ice sculpture to melt? And how long would it take if I would put it in water of the same volume and temperature as the room?

Would there be any difference in time before all the ice has been turned to water, you guess?

I would be worried more about geothermal heat sources; volcanoes under the ice.
They recently discovered ...w(!!) ones


.

How many degrees are climate change models predicting for rises in lower atmosphere and upper ocean layers temperatures as a result of human impacts?

.

Hint: This increase requires the atmosphere and oceans to contain more than enough additional Joules/degree Kelvin to melt the Antarctic ice.

.

You are applying junk science based on bogus equivalents. The amount of electrical energy produced is not a valid measure of our impacts on the environment.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/24/18 12:02am

maplenpg

TweetyV6 said:



13cjk13 said:


So, lets get cracking!!! Lets try and fuck this world harder, at a faster pace!!




My point: we can't fuck the world. Even if we try to do it with all the energy we create and use it for nothing else then trying to melt the antarctic ice sheet.

We're insignificant fuckers


Whilst I agree that we are insignificant as a species, and that we will at some point be eliminated (probably through our own stupidity), I don't see it as a reason to sit back and do nothing. I live near a UK coastline that is eroding. Many houses have fallen in the sea and those that sit near the edge are mostly uninhabitable. Ive heard the arguments for and against sea defences - do we let nature take its course, or do we intervene? I think if we are to survive as a species then we need to take much more action, not less. IMO We need to consume less (especially Palm oil and plastic), we need to find renewable energy, we need to find a way to cope with antibiotic resistance and superbugs, and we need to look after each other rather than kill each other. Who knows what will ultimately wipe us out? Who knows if we have the power to stop it? Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel humans can be against fellow humans and animals, especially when in the pursuit of money and power.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/24/18 3:58am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

.

How many degrees are climate change models predicting for rises in lower atmosphere and upper ocean layers temperatures as a result of human impacts?

A rise of 3-4 deg. per century has been predicted by models.
Unfortunately, nature decided not to follow the models and the warming we see is way below predictions.

Hint: This increase requires the atmosphere and oceans to contain more than enough additional Joules/degree Kelvin to melt the Antarctic ice.

And yet, it's not happening. The opposite is happening.


You are applying junk science based on bogus equivalents. The amount of electrical energy produced is not a valid measure of our impacts on the environment.


Junk science?
Facts. Plain and simple facts and physical properties. I provided sources.

And BTU is not electricity. It's ALL energy produced by humans.

But you're not getting the clue, that's obvious.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 07/24/18 4:49am

Lianachan

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

We'll all be flooded well before Antarctica is fully melted. That's the problem.


I won't be, sitting here in the Highlands!

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge"" ~ Isaac Asimov
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 07/24/18 4:55am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

And yet, it's not happening. The opposite is happening.


You are applying junk science based on bogus equivalents. The amount of electrical energy produced is not a valid measure of our impacts on the environment.


Junk science?
Facts. Plain and simple facts and physical properties. I provided sources.

And BTU is not electricity. It's ALL energy produced by humans.

But you're not getting the clue, that's obvious.

.

Any basic understanding of climate change is based on issues like greenhouse gases not energy production. An assumption that it is based on purely on energy production is plain and simple but not at all factual. Quoting sources to disprove something that has no connection to what is being argued is clueless junk science.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 07/24/18 7:02am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:

.

Any basic understanding of climate change is based on issues like greenhouse gases not energy production. An assumption that it is based on purely on energy production is plain and simple but not at all factual. Quoting sources to disprove something that has no connection to what is being argued is clueless junk science.

You're pulling it out of context.

This is not about climate change or global warming.

This is about how much time it would take if we would use all energy we produced in 2016 to melt the antartic ice cap. Or: we are insignificant.
And I used very, very basic physics to calculate it roughly. No junk science. Simple high school physics.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 07/24/18 7:18am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Tweety, show us your top sources?

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 07/24/18 7:52am

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Tweety, show us your top sources?

Sources for what?

For the 2016 BTU's and the size/weight of the antarctic ice sheet; these are in the initial post.
How much energy it requires to melt ice is a physical property.

That's all you need to do the math.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 07/24/18 8:25am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

Watts up with that? Right Tweety?

Tweety loves to cut and paste from a climate change deniers website? lol
Tweety why don’t you post the source of your post or are you the author of that climate change deniers site’s post?


https://wattsupwiththat.c...ic-icecap/
[Edited 7/24/18 14:24pm]
Crooked Donnie. Lock him up!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 07/24/18 1:18pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

Any basic understanding of climate change is based on issues like greenhouse gases not energy production. An assumption that it is based on purely on energy production is plain and simple but not at all factual. Quoting sources to disprove something that has no connection to what is being argued is clueless junk science.

You're pulling it out of context.

This is not about climate change or global warming.

This is about how much time it would take if we would use all energy we produced in 2016 to melt the antartic ice cap. Or: we are insignificant.
And I used very, very basic physics to calculate it roughly. No junk science. Simple high school physics.

.

Nice backtrack. Pity it came after you already disclosed your purpose for posting it.

.

You said and I quote "My point: we can't fuck the world." Your history here is riddled with junk science posts about how there is no human caused climate change because we are insignificant.

.

Your purpose is to create a false impression that "we can't fuck the world". You argued it with junk science by applying a simplistic high school calculation of how long it would take to melt the Antarctic ice using only energy we produce when no one is arguing that this is how we are wrecking the world and melting the polar ice caps.

.

There is nothing different here from most junk science: Most junk science is based on very, very basic physics miss-applied to fake a point.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 07/24/18 4:58pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:

You're pulling it out of context.

This is not about climate change or global warming.

This is about how much time it would take if we would use all energy we produced in 2016 to melt the antartic ice cap. Or: we are insignificant.
And I used very, very basic physics to calculate it roughly. No junk science. Simple high school physics.

.

Nice backtrack. Pity it came after you already disclosed your purpose for posting it.

.

You said and I quote "My point: we can't fuck the world." Your history here is riddled with junk science posts about how there is no human caused climate change because we are insignificant.

.

Your purpose is to create a false impression that "we can't fuck the world". You argued it with junk science by applying a simplistic high school calculation of how long it would take to melt the Antarctic ice using only energy we produce when no one is arguing that this is how we are wrecking the world and melting the polar ice caps.

.

There is nothing different here from most junk science: Most junk science is based on very, very basic physics miss-applied to fake a point.


eek ..... clapping

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 07/24/18 9:23pm

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:

You're pulling it out of context.

This is not about climate change or global warming.

This is about how much time it would take if we would use all energy we produced in 2016 to melt the antartic ice cap. Or: we are insignificant.
And I used very, very basic physics to calculate it roughly. No junk science. Simple high school physics.

.

Nice backtrack. Pity it came after you already disclosed your purpose for posting it.

.

You said and I quote "My point: we can't fuck the world." Your history here is riddled with junk science posts about how there is no human caused climate change because we are insignificant.

.

Your purpose is to create a false impression that "we can't fuck the world". You argued it with junk science by applying a simplistic high school calculation of how long it would take to melt the Antarctic ice using only energy we produce when no one is arguing that this is how we are wrecking the world and melting the polar ice caps.

.

There is nothing different here from most junk science: Most junk science is based on very, very basic physics miss-applied to fake a point.


I know with your vast religious beliefs that you somehow cannot accept that we're insignificant.
Closing your eyes for plain and simple facts because they don't compute in your mind.

But we are insignificant.
There are natural forces which exceed our powers thousands of times. Forces we aren't able to influence even if we wanted to.

___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 07/25/18 1:53am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

Nice backtrack. Pity it came after you already disclosed your purpose for posting it.

.

You said and I quote "My point: we can't fuck the world." Your history here is riddled with junk science posts about how there is no human caused climate change because we are insignificant.

.

Your purpose is to create a false impression that "we can't fuck the world". You argued it with junk science by applying a simplistic high school calculation of how long it would take to melt the Antarctic ice using only energy we produce when no one is arguing that this is how we are wrecking the world and melting the polar ice caps.

.

There is nothing different here from most junk science: Most junk science is based on very, very basic physics miss-applied to fake a point.


I know with your vast religious beliefs that you somehow cannot accept that we're insignificant.
Closing your eyes for plain and simple facts because they don't compute in your mind.

But we are insignificant.
There are natural forces which exceed our powers thousands of times. Forces we aren't able to influence even if we wanted to.

.

The character of the Major in "A Farewell to Arms" developed from joining in with taunting the Priest. He later gets over his immaturity and defends the Priest.

.

Falling back to false accusations and wrong assumptions is not your best work.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 07/25/18 6:51am

Dancelot

avatar

Wow, now that's some weak ass trash point lol

but okay, I'll play along





if I attack you with a banana most likely I won't be able to kill you

the point I'm trying to make? with basic physics?

my capabilities to kill are insiginficant, I could never kill you.

so if they found me standing with a smoking gun beside your dead body I'm sure the police would still let me go because of the banana argument nod dunce





7odFR0rdeKtG.gif




[Edited 7/25/18 6:52am]

Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 07/25/18 9:14am

13cjk13

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:

You're pulling it out of context.

This is not about climate change or global warming.

This is about how much time it would take if we would use all energy we produced in 2016 to melt the antartic ice cap. Or: we are insignificant.
And I used very, very basic physics to calculate it roughly. No junk science. Simple high school physics.

.

Nice backtrack. Pity it came after you already disclosed your purpose for posting it.

.

You said and I quote "My point: we can't fuck the world." Your history here is riddled with junk science posts about how there is no human caused climate change because we are insignificant.

.

Your purpose is to create a false impression that "we can't fuck the world". You argued it with junk science by applying a simplistic high school calculation of how long it would take to melt the Antarctic ice using only energy we produce when no one is arguing that this is how we are wrecking the world and melting the polar ice caps.

.

There is nothing different here from most junk science: Most junk science is based on very, very basic physics miss-applied to fake a point.

Bravo.

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 07/25/18 9:27am

poppys

Dancelot said:

Wow, now that's some weak ass trash point lol

but okay, I'll play along





if I attack you with a banana most likely I won't be able to kill you

the point I'm trying to make? with basic physics?

my capabilities to kill are insiginficant, I could never kill you.

so if they found me standing with a smoking gun beside your dead body I'm sure the police would still let me go because of the banana argument nod dunce





7odFR0rdeKtG.gif




Brilliant!

See the source image

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 07/25/18 6:08pm

IanRG

Dancelot said:

Wow, now that's some weak ass trash point lol

but okay, I'll play along





if I attack you with a banana most likely I won't be able to kill you

the point I'm trying to make? with basic physics?

my capabilities to kill are insiginficant, I could never kill you.

so if they found me standing with a smoking gun beside your dead body I'm sure the police would still let me go because of the banana argument nod dunce





7odFR0rdeKtG.gif




[Edited 7/25/18 6:52am]

.

<img src=" style="background-color:#5900ae;padding:4px;border:medium none;" />

.

Another way of looking at this is:

.

It is as silly as saying the Enola Gay only had 4 ~2600 KJ/s engines. This is insignificant to the energy it is claimed that it released over Hiroshima (63 TJ) as it would take 192 years for these 4 engines to provide this much energy. That the crew of the Enola Gay bombed Hiroshima is, therefore not possible to believe unless you are blinded by a religious belief!!!!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 07/26/18 12:05am

Dancelot

avatar

IanRG said:

icon_lol.gif

.

Another way of looking at this is:

.

It is as silly as saying the Enola Gay only had 4 ~2600 KJ/s engines. This is insignificant to the energy it is claimed that it released over Hiroshima (63 TJ) as it would take 192 years for these 4 engines to provide this much energy. That the crew of the Enola Gay bombed Hiroshima is, therefore not possible to believe unless you are blinded by a religious belief!!!!

bingo. better analogy than the banana smile
the Enola Gay would be the greenhouse gases.

Little Boy (the A-bomb) would be the sun. roughly.


global warming is not done directly by humans placing immersion coils into the oceans. the energy comes from the sun. and the sun produces plenty of energy, certainly enuff for Antarctica

( I know he said this is not about global warming, yet we all know where he's aiming at)





Tweety can you calculate how long it takes for the ice to melt if all the energy of the sun is targeted at Antarcitca ? one minute? three seconds 0.001 milliseconds? it would be like dropping a snowflake onto an hot ofen...

I'm too lazy to do the math. however, if you do, it is all valid basic physics. sure. but it is still an IRRELEVANT point! the Thursday dumb fact, if you want razz


[Edited 7/26/18 5:26am]

Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 07/30/18 1:19am

TweetyV6

avatar

Dancelot said:

IanRG said:

icon_lol.gif

.

Another way of looking at this is:

.

It is as silly as saying the Enola Gay only had 4 ~2600 KJ/s engines. This is insignificant to the energy it is claimed that it released over Hiroshima (63 TJ) as it would take 192 years for these 4 engines to provide this much energy. That the crew of the Enola Gay bombed Hiroshima is, therefore not possible to believe unless you are blinded by a religious belief!!!!

bingo. better analogy than the banana smile
the Enola Gay would be the greenhouse gases.

Little Boy (the A-bomb) would be the sun. roughly.


global warming is not done directly by humans placing immersion coils into the oceans. the energy comes from the sun. and the sun produces plenty of energy, certainly enuff for Antarctica

( I know he said this is not about global warming, yet we all know where he's aiming at)





Tweety can you calculate how long it takes for the ice to melt if all the energy of the sun is targeted at Antarcitca ? one minute? three seconds 0.001 milliseconds? it would be like dropping a snowflake onto an hot ofen...

I'm too lazy to do the math. however, if you do, it is all valid basic physics. sure. but it is still an IRRELEVANT point! the Thursday dumb fact, if you want razz


[Edited 7/26/18 5:26am]


Aaaaaaaaannnnnddd... pulling it further out of context. rolleyes



___________________________________________________________________________________

All thinking men are Atheists - Hemingway

P.s. If you find spelling errors, you may keep them
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 3 123>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Monday Fun Fact: Can humans melt Antarctica?