Dismay as huge chunk of Greenland's ice cap breaks off:
An enormous chunk of Greenland's ice cap has broken off in the far northeastern Arctic, a development that scientists say is evidence of rapid climate change.
The glacier section that broke off is 110 square kilometers (42.3 square miles). It came off of the fjord called Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden, which is roughly 80 kilometers (50 miles) long and 20 kilometers (12 miles) wide, the National Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland said Monday.
[...] Annual end-of-melt-season changes for the Arctic's largest ice shelf in Northeast Greenland are measured by optical satellite imagery, the survey known as GEUS said. It shows that the area's ice losses for the past two years each exceeded 50 square kilometers (19 square miles).
[...] "What is thought-provoking is that if we ... had seen this meltdown 30 years ago, we would have called it extreme. So in recent years, we have become accustomed to a high meltdown."
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @08:51PM (6 children)
We need to know how many football stadiums, olympic-sized swimming pools, or Grand Canyon's the melted ice will fill before we can understand the order of magnitude and units of measurement.
(Score: 3, Funny) by acid andy on Monday September 21 2020, @09:02PM (1 child)
Would you settle for a car analogy?
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:07PM
Sure -- an area equal to all the parking lots filled with illegally polluting Volkswagen diesels. Eventually VW made software changes so they could re-sell them after the worst of the PR damage had blown over.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday September 21 2020, @09:02PM (2 children)
This should help. [theregister.com]
0.0053 Wales, or 27155.3976 football pitches (UK type) in area. Not sure of volume due to lack of third dimension in the article. "Lots" maybe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @10:24PM (1 child)
From OP:
Then we can get a percentage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet [wikipedia.org]
100*110/1710000 = 0.0064%
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 22 2020, @01:58AM
I think the point they're trying to make is not how big this bit of ice is, rather that is another bit of the ice shelf broken off and less ice grows back each winter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @11:41PM
1,437,925.5 libraries of congress squared per fortnite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @08:55PM (2 children)
This will be a huge benefit to iceberg tourism. Nearly all icebergs come from Greenland so Newfoundland & Labrador are going to benefit immensely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @10:49PM
It'll be titanic.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 22 2020, @01:16PM
Iceberg tourism in Newfoundland & Labrador is worthwhile. St. Anthony's at the northern tip of Newfoundland has a beautiful park on high sea cliffs overlooking Iceberg Alley. You can see the behemoth icebergs float by while eating a picnic lunch; sometimes they calve and roll over while you watch. Whales like to gambol in the surf below, too. It's terrific.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:05PM (15 children)
You were duped -- says the Beeb yesterday--
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382 [bbc.com]
Article makes several different cases that all point the same way, here's the first one:
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @10:28PM
The oil industry didnt make anyone doubt climate change. Everyone agrees that the climate changes.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday September 22 2020, @04:47AM (13 children)
no one is denying climate change. temp has been going up and down on earth in cycles for millions of years, often at greater rates than today. no one is doubting we're producing greenhouse gasses at a rate never before seen in millions of years. it's man-made climate change that's in question. the slope of gas emission is exponentially higher than in previous climate change cycles. the temp increases are not -they're slow and average to previous cycles. to many people, and most geologists, this says the climate change today is not caused by our greenhouse gasses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @05:08AM (1 child)
What happened to you? Why do you think talking out of ass is acceptable behaviour? Lack of punishment?
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday September 22 2020, @03:44PM
what happened to you? why do you think a random site where random people comment about anything and everything is your safespace? were you given a lot of participation trophies?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday September 22 2020, @08:09AM (8 children)
cmon, citations!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @10:36AM (7 children)
Can you even define climate change? Because it does not mean the climate changing or else the post above wouldn't be marked troll.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday September 22 2020, @12:38PM (6 children)
I'm not sure what you mean, but I guess the troll mod was because of this statement
> the slope of gas emission is exponentially higher than in previous climate change cycles. the temp increases are not -they're slow and average to previous cycles
which is made without citation and is, I believe, not based in fact. The GP did not qualify what scale "cycle" refers to, but if he means the ~1000 year scale then one can see this figure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg [wikipedia.org]
(taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) [wikipedia.org]
where there is no such temperature change. If GP is referring to longer time scales, then one can refer to this figure:
https://phys.org/news/2020-09-high-fidelity-earth-climate-history-current.html [phys.org]
(taken from https://phys.org/news/2020-09-high-fidelity-earth-climate-history-current.html [phys.org] )
I guess it is hard to tell what is actually a change in temperature and what is really just noise in the data. For example, there are about 3 data points at around -13k years which look like they might be a temperature change on the scale of the current thing, but it is hard to say.
The point is, GP made an assertion without citation so might as well not have posted. Reminder this is a tech website.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @01:15PM
But who believes the climate never changes? No one.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday September 22 2020, @02:22PM (4 children)
I clearly said millions of years, so your second graph applies, showing the current temperature rise has a lower slope than many other datapoints. I don't need to provide a source - it takes 5 seconds to google "geological temperature history" or similar. this is indeed a tech website, so people can google things themselves. what this is not is a peer-reviewed journal.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 23 2020, @08:22AM (3 children)
> what this is not is a peer-reviewed journal.
Yeah, but if you are making a claim over what *the data* says, it is a total waste of time without a link to *the data*. You're just wasting bandwidth.
> the current temperature rise has a lower slope than many other datapoints
Thanks, I think your claim is on the edge of the data resolution but (without digging into systematic errors and point-to-point correlations) you are probably right.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday September 24 2020, @12:11AM (2 children)
it's not. you're free to consult the chart for millions of years provided by you yourself, or just google - in fact googling gives you graphs by google itself - you don't even need to click a search result.
"edge of resolution?" wtf are you talking about? look at your own damn chart and it shows you very clearly how the temp has gone up before and how it's going up now.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday September 24 2020, @08:19AM (1 child)
> "edge of resolution?" wtf are you talking about?
You talked about the *gradient* of the graph, that is the change in temperature with respect to time.
The change in temperature between data points is large, sometimes several degrees C.
*But* the change in time between data points is also large. On the data I pointed to, each data point on the right hand scale is about 1 year. Each data point on the middle scale is about 100 years. Each data point on the left hand side is 10000 years.
If the temperature changes by 1 degrees C point-to-point on the right hand chart as compared to the others, that means the *gradient* is 100 times compared to the middle scale and 10000 times compared to the left hand scale.
For example, I can see places where the temperature changes by 4 degrees C over about 3 or 4 points in the middle chart; as compared to 1 degree C over about 50 or 100 points in the right hand chart. This means that the *gradient* is roughly the same for these different data.
How much of that is driven by errors, both systematic and statistical, is not clear to me. The statistical errors seem to be about 1 or 2 degree C on the middle and left charts (just looking at point-to-point noise). It is not clear to be whether there are any systematic errors, or correlations point-to-point.
For example, if they are counting radionuclides in this millenium or that millenium of ice, maybe there has been some leaching between different layers which means *this* point is correlated with its neighbours, with correlations some terrible function of ice density or something. Maybe something else can effect the number of radionuclides, it isn't just temperature, and they didn't correct for it appropriately. I am no expert in this stuff.
This is my point, data is complicated and it is very easy to misinterpret or overinterpret. Never mind, it's not like we are talking about the end of the world or anything.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday September 26 2020, @09:03PM
your error bars get eaten up by the scale. have you seen the prediction graphs? we're talking 20 degrees temp rise, at a high slope - predicted in the future. the earth has had higher and lower temp than now. your error of a couple of degrees is irrelevant. the predictions that it would rise by 20+ degrees by Today was already made 30 years ago, and they just keep pushing it off.
Again, look at the CO2 data. It has gone up exponentially. The temp data was not. You're saying "there's still a correlation, but you don't see it because of measuring error, but just trust me, it's there." Even though climate scientists (but not geologists) have been saying the same thing since 1980, and literally it has not been observed in the data recorded since then.
(Score: 2) by julian on Tuesday September 22 2020, @05:55PM (1 child)
By you, maybe. Not by people who know what they're talking about. [skepticalscience.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday September 22 2020, @07:07PM
there are a lot of geologists who don't think climate change is man-made. if you actually look at the data - the graphs of temperature, and co2 emissions, you'll see there is a very weak correlation between the current Huge spike in co2 and the tiny slow increase in temperature. you'll also see that historically, the temp increase now has happened hundreds of time before, in cycles, and often much faster than now.
when you say people who know what they're talking about - are those the same people that 30 years ago predicted manhattan and california would be underwater now, and have moved the goalposts every 10 years since then? Are you talking about the people who said nuclear war would cause nuclear winter, and in the 90s changed their mind to say it'll just be an extra couple of weeks extra of regular winter per year? the same people who believed in "ether" before we discovered the photon?
here's the problem. scientists are often wrong, and that's not the issue. the issue is idiots without critical thinking skills taking what the majority scientists say as scripture, instead of "this is our hypothesis at the moment." when a scientist gets more data and refines theories, they change the hypothesis and all is good. you are clearly not a scientist - you look at evidence pointing a little more one way and say it as an absolute.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by acid andy on Monday September 21 2020, @09:06PM (3 children)
Capitalism just needs a reason to care. Start trading temperatures and temperature futures on the markets. If a country, or someone in it, is feeling a bit chilly, they can sell their cold stuff and buy some warmer stuff from elsewhere. They shipped ice around for rich people's drinks before we had freezers, so this is just the next logical step. Move hot stuff around as well. For money! It's a flawless plan!
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday September 21 2020, @09:26PM (2 children)
Perhaps we should convert that heat into work and move it around with wires!
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday September 21 2020, @10:17PM (1 child)
You're thinking like an electrician. If we keep it in a more tangible form, we can move it around in a series of tubes. And, as we all know, we already have such a series.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 21 2020, @11:04PM
I'm trying to download some chill from intertubes, but all it comes it's hot.
Maybe I should try some other source than pornhub? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:09PM (33 children)
The heat sinks are disappearing rapidly now. As predicted the climate changes are occurring exponentially faster as we've crossed the predicted tipping point. We are locked in to massive changes, so now we need to try and limit the impacts and countries need to work together to help each other.
Not helping a country because you don't like them is a stuoidity we can not tolerate because it will be much harder to handle failing economies and refugees than just helping them out.
I hold zero hope for stupid bigoted selfish greedy people like most Republicans and DINOs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:11PM (32 children)
Nobody has an answer for how to stop global warming friend, and that is the hard truth.
Our best hope is basically learning to adapt to it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:17PM (2 children)
I include in this that the First World cannot "save" the Third World any more than we have been able to "save" them from anything else.
The First World countries don't owe EACH OTHER anything.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:41PM (1 child)
Then you miss the point, like a typical selfish Republican. 1st world countries do owe something because they are the biggest polluters. However it isn't about owing, it is about our best chances for future survival that don't involve wars that will probably end civilization as we know it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @10:47PM
Have you noticed the UN/WHO response to covid? It is the most incompetent thing I have ever seen. Every step along the way they have been wrong. The pinnacle of their idiocy was when they recommended putting people on ventilators right away based on zero evidence (killing or harming hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide) then later announced there was no evidence that antibodies confer immunity despite millions of papers published on antibodies conferring immunity to viruses they are raised against.
https://www.who.int/publications-detail/clinical-care-of-severe-acute-respiratory-infections-tool-kit [who.int]
https://mobile.twitter.com/NNeanderMedical/status/1271025449615925250 [twitter.com]
https://static.abplive.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/26153747/WHO-d.jpg?impolicy=abp_cdn&imwidth=640 [abplive.com]
And have they made sure the vaccines are checked for the same thing that stopped SARS1 vaccines by repeating the same studies for SARS2? No, no one has repeated these:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985 [nature.com]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X14013321a [sciencedirect.com]
I wont even go into the cheap and safe approach of treating the severe vitamin C and oxygen deficiency seen in covid patients with hyperbaric oxygen and vitamin C that they totally ignore (or even call a "myth"). So I doubt listening to that group is the best chance. Instead they will destroy everything in the most expensive way possible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:30PM (15 children)
How about the obvious answer of limiting human population?
For some reason, the obvious never gets mentioned.
If humans do not address the population issue, then natural forces will.
I do not see wild animals contributing to climate issues on the planet.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:48PM (9 children)
Yes it is obvious to everyone, but there are very few solutiins.
War or any other murderous option is not a good idea. If we have to debate that then yiu are a socio/psychopath.
Voluntary reduction of pregnancies, we've seen the average human is too selfish and there is way too much momentum behind religious and cultural motivations to have lots of kids.
Mandating 1-2 children max would work, but that goes against most of humanity's concept of freedom. Hell, just getting morons to wear masks to stop a pandemic is viewed as tyranny. So this is the only viable and humane option, but it is political suicide as the average human doesn't understand the danger of the current population size.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @02:18AM (8 children)
Reduction of pregnancies happens when more women get education and rights, just saying.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @04:45AM (7 children)
In the grand scheme of things, that is a short term effect. Evolution says that those women who voluntarily reduce their number of offspring when they get education and equal rights will, in a few generations, be replaced by those who don't.*
*Yes, you can take that two ways. Either don't reduce their offspring, or don't get education and equal rights.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by PiMuNu on Tuesday September 22 2020, @08:13AM (4 children)
> Evolution says...
No it doesn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @11:29AM (3 children)
It may not be politically correct but it does. I struggle to understand how anybody can be dumb enough to disbelieve in evolution. If you accept that offspring generally resemble their parents, then evolution is practically a tautology.
Offspring are like their parents.
If the parents have lots of offspring, their children are likely to as well.
Those who don't have lots of children are not well represented in the next generation.
Repeat for several generations and the vast majority will be descendants of those who continued to have lots of offspring.
That is because either:
1/ education and womens rights don't discourage them from having lots of children, or
2/ they don't have access to education and womens rights.
This is not a value judgement but a simple statement of biological reality.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @02:20PM
QED "Idoicracy"
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 23 2020, @11:18AM (1 child)
> If you accept that offspring generally resemble their parents
Ah, I forgot about the nymphomaniac gene. Or perhaps you are referring to the condom gene?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2020, @08:22PM
People who don't have any children generally don't have any grandchildren either.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 22 2020, @03:56PM (1 child)
Last time I looked education was not passed on via genetics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @05:52PM
You haven't looked very hard then. But that is irrelevant anyway.
Which bit of this do you disagree with?
1. Offspring are like their parents.
2. If the parents have lots of offspring, their children are likely to as well.
3. Those who don't have lots of children are not well represented in the next generation.
4. Repeat for several generations and the vast majority will be descendants of those who continued to have lots of offspring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @10:51PM
ok; you go first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @10:58PM
If humans died out tomorrow, beavers would still melt the permafrost and release all the methane causing even more warming than humans ever did.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/americas/beavers-arctic-scn-climate-change-trnd/index.html [cnn.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @11:13PM
How about limiting the number of wasteful humans?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 21 2020, @11:16PM
No [wikimedia.org]? Here they are, clear cutting forest [geostrategis.com] and causing wide spread flooding.
Now, think of the damage they would do if they had opposable thumbs!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Michael on Monday September 21 2020, @11:39PM
Unfortunately the only ways of doing that which seem to work long-term revolve around raising the standard of living of the plebs and having more egalitarian societies, so they're not really compatible with capitalism or neoliberalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:37PM (1 child)
There is no stopping it now, that is what the tipping point is.
We can mitigate future damage by limiting emissions and switching to less polluting energy sources. Next we must work as a unified species to help each other out, every country must pitch in what they can.
There you go friend, be enlightened and go spread the good word!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 22 2020, @02:50AM
Or by adapting to climate change. Make a wild guess why I don't think climate change is a serious problem?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @10:20PM (10 children)
> Our best hope is basically learning to adapt to it.
I did my adapting when I was parenting age, saw this overpopulation coming, and chose to not have kids (there were other reasons too). Plenty of "rent-a-kids" in my life to make it interesting and rewarding without having my own. And now, I don't have to feel bad about leaving this hot mess to my kids.
Oh, and other than here where I post as AC, I don't make a big deal about this with my friends that have kids...but in the last 10 years or so my friends are starting to have 2nd thoughts on their decision to have kids.
(Score: 2, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday September 21 2020, @10:30PM (9 children)
I don't know anybody with kids who had second thoughts, but I'm very happy with my choice to be intentionally child-free. All the doom and scolding rolls off my back -- I've contributed more to the environment than any amount of reducing, reusing, or recycling could ever do -- more than any greenwashed money making scheme could even imagine.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @10:46PM (2 children)
Oh really? You plant a forest all by yourself? Did you go electric vehicle and then help thousands of others switch as well? Renovate homes for energy efficiency?
Or are you just admitting to being a serial killer? ;)
(Score: 2, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 22 2020, @12:55AM (1 child)
No. I've done none of that. Instead there are is no exponential increase in population caused by me down through the millenia -- that is completely stopped short. Until the world has too few people to ensure continuation of the species, the ONLY environmental act with any meaning is to not procreate. Everything else is ineffectual harm reduction.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 22 2020, @04:51PM
I should correct -- I do have an electric car. However, I have the car because it is an awesome car and I'm skeptical that it is less environmentally impactful than gas cars. I have it because it is zippy, super quiet, and pleasant to drive (I say this as a person who stopped liking to drive sometime in my 20s).
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday September 21 2020, @11:04PM (5 children)
Why not do both (being child-free and reducing reusing, recycling in your own life)? You're aware of the issues and seem to recognize their importance, after all.
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @12:35AM (1 child)
gp here. Yes, as well as being child-free I also put a fair amount of effort into reducing, reusing, recycling/composting. We're not perfect, three adults in this house still generate about one grocery bags-worth of landfill every week...
The reusing bit is fun--for just one example, we have a small collection of different kinds of exercise machines, all found in the trash and rebuilt. Another, at the start of the virus shut down, lots of neighbors were cleaning basements out, scored a perfectly good Samsung LCD 4:3 monitor. I suspect the only problem for the former owners was that it had a VGA plug, they couldn't be bothered to buy a cheap converter to a newer standard (my old Thinkpads still have VGA.)
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday September 22 2020, @02:44PM
Yeah it sometimes astonishes me how quick people are to give up on a piece of tech or appliance and I get a huge kick out of any I can revive. There's something charming about older technology. I don't know, larger, chunkier, often simpler, sometimes more robust. occasionally better looking.
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 2, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 22 2020, @12:58AM (2 children)
op here -- I do what seems rational. I don't fly, I don't drive a gas guzzler, I heat with wood, I don't go out of my way to be destructive. But I also don't feel guilty when I run the AC if it's 85 degrees outside because my contribution to the environment is not merely transient -- it compounds exponentially until the end of time.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday September 22 2020, @02:41PM (1 child)
Thanks for clarifying. Almost no-one manages to get anywhere near minimizing their negative impact on the environment but you're doing far more than most, and your point about the exponential effect of ancestors is absolutely right and usually overlooked.
There don't seem to be many environmentalists on SoylentNews so I've often appreciated your posts and those of others that do speak out to defend the environment (off the top of my head, you, sometimes Joe Merchant, occasionally Ari, myself, and one or two ACs spring to mind primarily but I've probably missed a few).
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday September 23 2020, @02:51PM
s/ancestors/descendants/
consume_more_coffee();
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:13PM (4 children)
Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden!
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Monday September 21 2020, @09:26PM (1 child)
It roughly translates to "Nine and a half fjords fjord".
Rust programming language offends both my Intelligence and my Spirit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:40PM
It sounds more plausible as a different instance of the crazy Danish number syntax: 79 (degree) fjord.
They count in terms of scores, but then abbreviate and use preschool kids math to fill in.
Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden == Nioghalvfjerdsindstyvendefjorden == Nine + half four score fjord == Nine + seventy fjord == seventy-nine fjord.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 22 2020, @01:19PM (1 child)
Better that than the number in Greenlandic, which Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers reports is "arfineq-sisamat," or "second hand, four."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2020, @12:31AM
Offtopic but since you feel strongly about Cancel Culture I thought you might find this [patheos.com] interesting. Conservative minister fired over politics.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:44PM (5 children)
The October surprise in September! A glacier broke off, so it must be due to global warming^H^Hclimate change! And because Trump doesn't subscribe to that religion, it must be his fault! Save the planet and vote for the wet toilet paper^H^H^HBiden.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @09:51PM (4 children)
You should go take a dump, you're a little too full of shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @10:33PM (3 children)
At least he can recall where the toilet is unlike Biden, although the memory lapses aren't so consequential in Biden's case. He's been shitting all over regular people for decades.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2020, @11:01PM (1 child)
So has Trump. But to punish him, you morons elected him president.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Pav on Monday September 21 2020, @11:37PM
At least Trump lied about caring about US jobs, healthcare, infrastructure etc... and the same swing voters who voted in a black guy with a muslim under a "hope and change" banner but who was more of the same... well, they tried out the other team. Biden and the Democrats now are letting the biggest Bush Republican war and deficit hawks talk at their national convention, and banned the likes of Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner etc.... and even wouldn't let AOC speak outside of a 30 second prerecorded clip. They won't include anything from the progressive wing of the party in their platform... not even a single issue that has BIPARTISAN SUPPORT among both Democrat and Republican voters - all for a platform which is non-binding and just a statement of principles.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday September 22 2020, @12:46AM
Heh. Dementia jokes at Biden's expense are an automatic self-own.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @12:32AM
...he's stealing it chunks at a time.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 22 2020, @01:24PM (1 child)
The article says the chunk of ice that broke off is sea ice. That won't affect sea level.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @03:21PM
Facts are dangerous! Stop the facts!