Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 1/7/25 1:30 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

On 2025-01-07 13:14, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>

On 2025-01-07 11:26, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>

On 2025-01-07 08:43, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>

On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>

On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
so I don't see how one is worse than the other.

>
Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
fuck of a lot of fresh water

>
If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>

Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
Scotland

>
Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D

>
There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.

>
       https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-military- sees-growing-threat-in-thawing-permafrost/
>
       Climate change is rapidly altering the Arctic landscape, in particular the
       permafrost that serves as a foundation for buildings across the region.
       Warming temperatures are thawing out the frozen ground, and in the process
       it is threatening to unsettle structures that were built decades ago.

>
"... that were built decades ago." How many buildings have been erected
decades ago in the waste known as Greenland? Even in Quebec where the
north is settled to a degree, the amount of buildings in existence is
minimal because the population is itself tiny.
>

       That's particularly worrisome for the U.S. military, which maintains
       facilities across the Arctic region. And it's one reason Hicks embarked on
       a two-day tour of the nation’s northernmost military bases.
>
       “Building and maintaining infrastructure — like runways — on permafrost
       presents unique challenges for Arctic nations — which are growing with the
       effects of climate change,” Hicks wrote in a Twitter post on Monday.

>
Once there is no longer permafrost, those challenges will be eradicated too.

>
And replacement structures will be built/rebuilt.
>
And that doesn't include methane release.

>
I don't mind if the people building new structure fart a time or two. Do
you, Chris?

>
Cut the patronizing crap.

 I can't help but patronize here. You're looking at a gigantic country, bigger than Europe, which is more or less uninhabited at the moment because of its unfavourable conditions. 

Its uninhabited for a reason.  Do you really think that if it was +10F warmer that all of the reasons are going to suddenly disappear?

The climate _might_ be warming with the result being an uninhabited continent of a country becoming viable for life, and you're concerned that the few buildings it has might be destroyed and/or replaced, as if that hasn't happened in the West before, and that some methane might be released. Who gives a shit?

Methane is known to be a pretty nasty greenhouse gas: you're looking at a positive feedback loop.  The observation on infrastructure is that it is all going to be impacted & incur expenses even to maintain status quo without any "everyone moves North" growth like you're suggesting.

Suddenly, you have a place where you can send the useless people looking to be refugees in the West, if they really want freedom and another shot at life.

Moot point when domestic policy won't let anyone in, even if these new lands were to magically be opened up.

Suddenly, you have access to a wide variety of resources which have not yet been exploited.

"Suddenly"?  Oil fields at Prudhoe Bay started in the 1960's, before you were born.  And at 70°N, it's well above the Arctic Circle (66°34′N).

And here _you_ are, Chris, concerned that living there might increase the temperature in one hundred years by another 0.1 degree and increase the sea level by a millimetre.

Except that there's already had +4" sea level rise since 1993...
...and the rate of temperature change is known to be increasing:  the trend in 2000 was for +1.5°C by 2041, but the post-1995 trendline shows that that same +1.5°C datum is expected much earlier, in 2030.  Note too that as of 2024, we're already most of the way there, at +1.36°C datum:
<https://x.com/WeatherProf/status/1876273745482121550/photo/1>

Funny enough, there are lots of buildings erected over a century ago that are surrounded by the same height of water today than they were back then.

Which are waterfront on an *ocean*?  Likewise, eliminate from consideration all of those places which have built and/or raised seawalls/barriers/etc, such as New York City, London, Venice...

Nothing has changed regardless of what some scientists they purchased tell you.

One of my personal "To Do" projects is a 30+ year longitudinal photo essay of a concrete jetty built on bedrock:  it used to stand clear & dry at high tide, but its now awash.  Convince me on what's changed that wasn't sea level rise.

We already know that the "global cooling," "global warming" and finally "climate change" garbage is a scam meant to enrich the people at the top even more. We are also aware that a lot of the floodings that have happened recently, like in Spain, were manufactured not natural. If you get rid of the structures holding the water out of certain areas, it's obvious that you will end up with flooding.

Which explains the flooding channelized through a city, but not that the rainfall amounts have become pretty biblical.  For Valenia City, Spain, the upstream town was Turis, which got 184.6mm in just one hour: that's over 7 inches.  Likewise, its 24 hour total was 771mm (30"+).
-hh