Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

On 2025-01-07 16:31, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
 

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"+).

 This Andrzej guy is what I call a "frog in water set to boil" troll.
He's done this before. Start out reasonable, and slowly ramp up the
bullshit, to prolong the engagement.
 Another climate-change rationalizer?
 He's also done some racist posts; I should have plonked his smarmy ass
days ago.

>
You've lived in my killfile on so many occasions that I don't even know why I ever bother expecting a post from you that isn't effeminate. What goes around comes around. Your posts are hereby filtered on my side too, and I probably won't change my decision in the future.

Why did you take him out of the killfile to start with? Are you a humanist believing in the human good in anyone? ;)