Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1

On 10/01/2025 09:35, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 1/10/25 4:19 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 10/01/2025 09:09, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

On 1/10/25 2:31 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
   ice will have melted back some more and there might be
   a more useful exposed rim.

>
Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow the sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .

>
   As I said elsewhere, I don't see Greenland melting
   anytime soon. 'Climate' suffers 'cooling periods'
   roughly every 500 years - often driven by massive
   Indonesian volcanic events (sometimes asteroids).
   Iceland may sometimes play a role.
>
   I think Greenland is mostly 'cycling' - right now
   it's slowly melting but sometime soon the climate
   may change a few degrees and it'll build up a lot
   more ice again.
>

The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended, technically. We are in an interstadial.

>
   Well ... the 'main part' of the last ice age DID
   end pretty abruptly in terms of geological time.
   Nobody is sure exactly why - all the factors that
   co-contributed. My GUESS is that sea levels got
   low enough to destabilize the methane hydrate
   deposits. There may be proxy evidence - we'll see.
>

But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.

>
   Well ... more like maybe 1000 years.
>

While the Younger Dryas feature abrupt and massive atmospheric  climate change over a few decades - way more than any modern warming or cooling - it did not immediately melt all of the ice.
>
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png

     These events have "curves". ALL the ice doesn't form,
   or melt, overnight. The BULK may change quickly but
   there's always a long 'shadow'.
    Right NOW we're still in the shadow of the last Big
   Freeze.
 

Shows the actual sea level rises and the full de glaciation took *over 6000* years.
>
And continues albeit at a far slower pace, to ythis day.
>
Mountains of ice do not melt in a day, or a week, or a decade or even a millennium
>
>

   The bullshit "world flood" then happened
   as ice-dams and such failed and sent Huge
   quantities of water down river tracts in
   the northern hemisphere. I can see why so
   many people imagined the entire world was
   flooded.
>
   Thing is, the last Big Freeze happened really
   quick too. SOME evidence points to an asteroid
   hitting arctic Canada or Greenland.
>

IT may have heppened quickly, but the ice did not form overnight.
>

   All the causes/equations are difficult, hard to
   pin down, but not impossible. 25 years from now
   we'll have a much better picture. Might even be
   able to take advantage.

>
The main facts are known. No matter what happens in the atmosphere, miles deep ice sheets to not melt overnight, and nor does deep permafrost.
>
You have to be particularly ignorant of physics to believe otherwise.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

    Ummm ... don't think I'm "pretty ignorant" at all,
   have always researched this kind of stuff.
 

Its not a matter of resaearchm, but of phyics, and oif yoiu had reaqearched te grpah I indicated it show exactly how the oice melted and sea levels roise ovre a 600 year period of constant steady

   As said, 'curves'.

No. Virtually a straight line,.
Post the Younger Dryas, ice started melting and sea level rose a a steady rate for the next 6000 years.
That was the 10% to 90%, and we have hadanother 5% since then, riughly.
The 90% is kinda volatile

   but the 10% sticks around for a long time,
   maybe seeds the NEXT cycle's curve.
    It's been about 55 million years since it ALL
   melted ... tropical jungle pole to pole. It's
   been longer since it ALL froze. Mostly we
   drift back and forth along a rough center line.
   MANY factors seem to drive the cycles.

Yes but that is hand-wavy BS and doesn't really help answer the question of whether or not Greenland will be ice free in 100 years.
And the physics says no. Latent heat of melting is simply too massive for that ice sheet.
You are in this matter plain *wrong*.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png Clearly shows rate of melt, but you ignored the [f]actual data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
Shows the underlying physics, that you hand waved away.
--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is fully understood.