0969: "Delta-P"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:49 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:You also never sourced that number.

Nystrom Atlas of world history pg. 6, it accompanied a decent history textbook a good 800 pages thick if I remember correctly. The graph is simplified because It was explaining how deep the Bering Strait is but it does go of in different direction preceding and exeeding the ice age showing higher sea levels than current levels without ever bringing up climate change.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:00 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:No, they weren't. The media was. Around 40 years ago (which was pretty much at the inception of modern climatology) there was a single study suggesting temperatures were going to drop. It was wrong. But taking a single study and blowing it out of proportion is not something you should ever do if you are serious about learning the truth.
This happened with global warming, no? The difference is that there was more money in it this time around.

Eebster the Great wrote:That's because receding coastlines are not due to rising sea levels anywhere. If I recall correctly, the sea has only risen about 8 cm since the early 60s.
So sea levels will rise without effecting landmass in the least? what the heck are we worrying about then? 8 centimeters should flood a couple hundred acres at the least. You cite three major noticable engulfers of water. You ignore the hundreds of other negligible causes that accumulate: groundwater stores, lakes, irrigation, even increased dams have all kept more water inland than clasically. The great lakes were at one point just holes in the ground dug out during the last Ice age, remember that.

Eebster the Great wrote:What?

Ignore my statement there, the 40 years part was all that mattered as a self correction, the rest was a terrible shield at the man caused global warming believers.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

dawolf
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby dawolf » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:51 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:So sea levels will rise without effecting landmass in the least? what the heck are we worrying about then? 8 centimeters should flood a couple hundred acres at the least.


I assume you mean most, not least.

Why don't you research some, or any, of your statements? You could try reading something like this

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090310104742.htm

and it would help you sound less....well, willfully uninformed.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:08 pm UTC

dawolf wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:So sea levels will rise without effecting landmass in the least? what the heck are we worrying about then? 8 centimeters should flood a couple hundred acres at the least.

I assume you mean most, not least.

I mean "at least" as in already, can show land that has flooded due to rising sea levels?

dawolf wrote:Why don't you research some, or any, of your statements?

I have researched well in the past, I clarify certain facts through a double check but I am generally only incorrect on exact numbers such as "67,952"(pulled out of thin air)

dawolf wrote:You could try reading something like this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090310104742.htm
and it would help you sound less....well, willfully uninformed.

Your wording in this quote as well as the last is meant as insult not debate, you do not argue my data against me, you simply regard it as irrelevent as it does not conform to your belief.

To quote the article: "This means that if emissions of greenhouse gases is not reduced quickly and substantially, even the best case scenario will hit low lying coastal areas housing one in ten humans on the planet hard"
You are one of those people who belive humans have that big in impact on the planet. You will not look at my data at all because you are so sure in your beliefs, and fyi I believed in global warming until I started to notice all the little details. I will likely never be reconverted.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:40 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:You also never sourced that number.

Nystrom Atlas of world history pg. 6, it accompanied a decent history textbook a good 800 pages thick if I remember correctly. The graph is simplified because It was explaining how deep the Bering Strait is but it does go of in different direction preceding and exeeding the ice age showing higher sea levels than current levels without ever bringing up climate change.

I meant the source though, not the textbook. Knowing which text you found it in really doesn't help me.

Fire Brns wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:No, they weren't. The media was. Around 40 years ago (which was pretty much at the inception of modern climatology) there was a single study suggesting temperatures were going to drop. It was wrong. But taking a single study and blowing it out of proportion is not something you should ever do if you are serious about learning the truth.
This happened with global warming, no? The difference is that there was more money in it this time around.

Well the initial research on global warming came out at that same time. The difference is the evidence actually supports this. There is a reason there is a scientific consensus that the Earth is warming due to anthropogenic causes, not just media hype.

Eebster the Great wrote:That's because receding coastlines are not due to rising sea levels anywhere. If I recall correctly, the sea has only risen about 8 cm since the early 60s.
So sea levels will rise without effecting landmass in the least? what the heck are we worrying about then? 8 centimeters should flood a couple hundred acres at the least. You cite three major noticable engulfers of water. You ignore the hundreds of other negligible causes that accumulate: groundwater stores, lakes, irrigation, even increased dams have all kept more water inland than clasically. The great lakes were at one point just holes in the ground dug out during the last Ice age, remember that.

Of course sea level rise affects the coastline, but coasts change every year anyway as land rises and falls and soil erodes, and these effects completely swamp the relatively small change in sea level.

There are three reasons I "ignore" the effects of fresh water other than melting ice on sea levels. First, they are negligible even in the aggregate. I suppose if the great lakes or the caspian sea were to double in size, that would have a major impact on sea levels, but a few inches here and there does not have a significant effect, because only a relatively small fraction of the Earth's fresh water is found in lakes. Second, the effects are not consistent and tend to offset each other. Third, if there is any significant effect on sea levels due to these factors, it will be to accelerate their rise, as the amount of usable fresh water has actually been decreasing (the levels of the great lakes and the caspian sea are falling due to increased evaporation, groundwater is very slowly disappearing as it is used by industry, etc.).

If you are talking about historical sea levels here, then of course the impact of these is going to be much greater. Certainly during the last ice age there was far more water bound in ice, so I'm sure the sea was much shallower, but I don't see why any of that matters for this discussion.

Cesiumlifejacket
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:01 am UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Cesiumlifejacket » Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:13 am UTC

tl; dr all the pages of discussion, but has anyone brought up the effect of Narnia's compressed timescale on this hypothetical? considering how relatively quickly time passes there, the deluge on our end would probably be a slow trickle over there.

In fact, how is one supposed to pass safely between both timescales? I'd think that sunlight from Narnia would become deadly gamma rays on our end, objects moving into Narnia would experience a huge loss in relative kinetic energy, etc. Any reasonable models as to how the wardrobe could be traversable?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:36 am UTC

Cesiumlifejacket wrote:tl; dr all the pages of discussion, but has anyone brought up the effect of Narnia's compressed timescale on this hypothetical?

Something like 75% of the discussion in this thread has been on this very point.

TL;DRing an entire discussion on your first post is a good way to get banned.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Fire Brns » Tue Nov 01, 2011 2:06 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:You also never sourced that number.

Nystrom Atlas of world history pg. 6, it accompanied a decent history textbook a good 800 pages thick if I remember correctly. The graph is simplified because It was explaining how deep the Bering Strait is but it does go of in different direction preceding and exeeding the ice age showing higher sea levels than current levels without ever bringing up climate change.

I meant the source though, not the textbook. Knowing which text you found it in really doesn't help me.

The footnotes were in the textbook wich I no longer posess not this atlas. I suppose I could email the company and ask them for their source but I doubt I will get it here for a while.
Eebster the Great wrote:That's because receding coastlines are not due to rising sea levels anywhere. If I recall correctly, the sea has only risen about 8 cm since the early 60s.
So sea levels will rise without effecting landmass in the least? what the heck are we worrying about then? 8 centimeters should flood a couple hundred acres at the least. You cite three major noticable engulfers of water. You ignore the hundreds of other negligible causes that accumulate: groundwater stores, lakes, irrigation, even increased dams have all kept more water inland than clasically. The great lakes were at one point just holes in the ground dug out during the last Ice age, remember that.

Of course sea level rise affects the coastline, but coasts change every year anyway as land rises and falls and soil erodes, and these effects completely swamp the relatively small change in sea level.

There are three reasons I "ignore" the effects of fresh water other than melting ice on sea levels. First, they are negligible even in the aggregate. I suppose if the great lakes or the caspian sea were to double in size, that would have a major impact on sea levels, but a few inches here and there does not have a significant effect, because only a relatively small fraction of the Earth's fresh water is found in lakes. Second, the effects are not consistent and tend to offset each other. Third, if there is any significant effect on sea levels due to these factors, it will be to accelerate their rise, as the amount of usable fresh water has actually been decreasing (the levels of the great lakes and the caspian sea are falling due to increased evaporation, groundwater is very slowly disappearing as it is used by industry, etc.).

If you are talking about historical sea levels here, then of course the impact of these is going to be much greater. Certainly during the last ice age there was far more water bound in ice, so I'm sure the sea was much shallower, but I don't see why any of that matters for this discussion.[/quote]
This will read to skeptics as: "The sea levels are rising but we can't prove it and as hard as you try you can't disprove it using our rules."
There is lots of low lying land, basically level with the sea, (I live less than a mile from the sea) that an eight cm increase should cause some inland flooding of even a cm or 2 that would seep into the ground and kill the plantlife.

On the water point: if we put all the lake water into the oceans it would rise roughly 0.1 meters or 10 cm so don't call it negligible even when added to other factors. We don't have the most acurate measurements of other water sources.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

Trasvi
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Trasvi » Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Everyone is talking about how the fast passage of time in Narnia would reduce the water flow to barely a trickle.

If that is an issue, the real problem is when the White Witch deduces what we tried to do, and pulls the same trick on us from HER end.
Are there any portal wardrobes in Narnia? From my limited recollection of the series, Aslan is the only way to get home.

Fun question for hydrodynamics type people. What happens to the Earth if the two situations (depth, size of wardrobe etc) occur on either side of a single portal at the same time (but with Narnia time moving at 1e6 faster than us)?

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:50 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:The footnotes were in the textbook wich I no longer posess not this atlas. I suppose I could email the company and ask them for their source but I doubt I will get it here for a while.

Yeah I mean clearly if you don't have the source; I'm not going to ask you to spend six hours looking for it or something. I just thought it would be listed in the book.

This will read to skeptics as: "The sea levels are rising but we can't prove it and as hard as you try you can't disprove it using our rules."

We can prove it. There are ways of measuring the sea level other than looking at coastlines. In fact, looking at the coast is useless for this purpose.

Quoting the last IPCC synthetic report (published 2007):
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 wrote:Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1). Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceans has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets contributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of these climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table SPM.1}


Fire Brns wrote:There is lots of low lying land, basically level with the sea, (I live less than a mile from the sea) that an eight cm increase should cause some inland flooding of even a cm or 2 that would seep into the ground and kill the plantlife.

Yeah, and there are plenty of Micronesian and Indonesian islands that are literally disappearing. There are also plenty of Hawaiian islands that are still growing. The relevant number is the global average sea level, and anecdotes about levee-bursting floods in France or whatever are not helpful for measuring this.

On the water point: if we put all the lake water into the oceans it would rise roughly 0.1 meters or 10 cm so don't call it negligible even when added to other factors. We don't have the most acurate measurements of other water sources.

>if we put all the lake water into the oceans
>all the lake water
>all

There's your problem.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Fire Brns » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:27 pm UTC

This will read to skeptics as: "The sea levels are rising but we can't prove it and as hard as you try you can't disprove it using our rules."

We can prove it. There are ways of measuring the sea level other than looking at coastlines. In fact, looking at the coast is useless for this purpose.

Quoting the last IPCC synthetic report (published 2007):
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 wrote:Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1). Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceans has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets contributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of these climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table SPM.1}


Fire Brns wrote:There is lots of low lying land, basically level with the sea, (I live less than a mile from the sea) that an eight cm increase should cause some inland flooding of even a cm or 2 that would seep into the ground and kill the plantlife.

Yeah, and there are plenty of Micronesian and Indonesian islands that are literally disappearing. There are also plenty of Hawaiian islands that are still growing. The relevant number is the global average sea level, and anecdotes about levee-bursting floods in France or whatever are not helpful for measuring this.

On the water point: if we put all the lake water into the oceans it would rise roughly 0.1 meters or 10 cm so don't call it negligible even when added to other factors. We don't have the most acurate measurements of other water sources.

>if we put all the lake water into the oceans
>all the lake water
>all

There's your problem.

The great lakes contain up to 90% of fresh water in North America. I'm sure there are quite a few other lakes and water bodies that didn't exist before the ice age.

And are the dams bursting or overflowing? because one is structual weakness the other is actually higher water. Hawaii has volcanic so yes it is going to grow and micronesia is in the middle of the ocean, the sea will wear away a rock; sand is much easier to displace.

I do not have any enjoyment for this arguement, I'm willing to declare we are at an impass -since neither of us is changing our minds- if you will so that we can go and figure out wtf this new comic is about.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:20 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:The great lakes contain up to 90% of fresh water in North America. I'm sure there are quite a few other lakes and water bodies that didn't exist before the ice age.

Right. But you were talking about sea levels 2,000 years ago, not 12,000 years ago.

And are the dams bursting or overflowing? because one is structual weakness the other is actually higher water. Hawaii has volcanic so yes it is going to grow and micronesia is in the middle of the ocean, the sea will wear away a rock; sand is much easier to displace.

Yeah I understand why these occur, and my point is that they have nothing to do with the average sea level. In the long term, a large rise in sea levels could be very dangerous, but the effects of a few cm will not be noticed without careful measurement.

I do not have any enjoyment for this arguement, I'm willing to declare we are at an impass -since neither of us is changing our minds- if you will so that we can go and figure out wtf this new comic is about.

It's a Peanuts reference.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Fire Brns » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:32 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:The great lakes contain up to 90% of fresh water in North America. I'm sure there are quite a few other lakes and water bodies that didn't exist before the ice age.

Right. But you were talking about sea levels 2,000 years ago, not 12,000 years ago.

I wasn't? Also those sources:
Table 2 “Oxygen isotopes and sea level,” 1986, J. Chappell and J.H. Shackleton, Nature 324: 137–140.
and
Figure 20.1, page 537, in “Epilogue,” J.E. Kutzbach and others, a chapter in Global Climates Since the Last Glacial Maximum, 1993, H.E. Wright, Jr., and others, U. of Minnesota Press.
Eebster the Great wrote:
And are the dams bursting or overflowing? because one is structual weakness the other is actually higher water. Hawaii has volcanic so yes it is going to grow and micronesia is in the middle of the ocean, the sea will wear away a rock; sand is much easier to displace.

Yeah I understand why these occur, and my point is that they have nothing to do with the average sea level. In the long term, a large rise in sea levels could be very dangerous, but the effects of a few cm will not be noticed without careful measurement.

I understand the process and acuracy of how they measure sea temperatures, how do you get an accurate sea level measurement?
Eebster the Great wrote:
I do not have any enjoyment for this arguement, I'm willing to declare we are at an impass -since neither of us is changing our minds- if you will so that we can go and figure out wtf this new comic is about.

It's a Peanuts reference.

You don't have to be such a kill joy.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
brandtsound
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:26 pm UTC
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby brandtsound » Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:45 pm UTC

Monual wrote:I hate that the "Chronicles of Narnia" movie series died just before my favorite story in that series, "The Silver Chair". But then, "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is my second-favorite story and the movie hardly did it justice, so perhaps it's just as well.


Well, there was the BBC version of the Silver Chair. It was OK, when I was a kid at least- I haven't watched it in forever (it is hard to find now).

EDIT: Sorry Harry Voyager, I didn't see your post when I made mine!

Harry Voyager wrote:I recall that the BBC version got through the Silver Chair, and did a pretty good job of it. THey even manage to get Tom Baker playing the Marshwiggle.


I agree- I think that Tom Baker did an excellent job as a Marshwiggle!
~ brandtsound, inc. ~

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:05 am UTC

Satellites give the best measure of eustatic sea level rise, but long tide gauges are also fairly reliable when placed in several different geologically stable regions. Estimating historic sea levels is much more difficult and less precise, and to be frank I don't really know how that's done.

It's cool that you found those sources though; I'll check them out.

User avatar
Rorgg
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:06 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Rorgg » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Vrishna wrote:
BrianB wrote:BTW - This is "Chronicles of Narnia"


Which is probably slightly more popular here, but nevertheless was completely ignored by me ... Is it worth reading or watching?


Depends on the book, the series is like 7 or 8. The first one's pretty good juvenile fantasy lit with Christian symbolism. As it drags on, it deteriorates a bit, with some bright spots (Voyage of the Dawn Treader) and some definite missteps (A Boy and His Horse is downright offensive in places if you stop to consider what he's getting at).

Then again, I've read Mere Christianity by Lewis, so I had a pretty good idea of where he was comng from.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby webgiant » Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:53 pm UTC

Denswei wrote:This could explain Noah's flood.
Someone in Narnia dropped their end of the portal into their ocean, and flooded the Earth.

At last a potential explanation as to where all the extra water came from to properly flood the Earth "above the highest mountain peaks"!

And naturally it flooded back in after 40 days and 40 nights.

Now how to explain the time machine to move the wardrobe from 1940s England to thousands of years in the past...

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:18 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:Now how to explain the time machine to move the wardrobe from 1940s England to thousands of years in the past...

Given how time is already wonky between the portals there may be some justification for that too.

Or maybe it was just a different wardrobe.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby Fire Brns » Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Rorgg wrote:(A Boy and His Horse is downright offensive in places if you stop to consider what he's getting at).
Refresh us? I read them years ago.
And I forgot which one it was but thanks to extreme repitition I cannot hear the phrase "He is not a Tame Lion" without ROTFL anymore.

As for the [wardrobe problem] they used the teleporter rings,that portal lake world, and some tubing to make the flow beween Narnia and Earth. First and last books were too ridiculous to forget.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

gruene
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:56 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby gruene » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:09 pm UTC

Biggest problem with this comic: 400,000 liters per second just isn't that much water, at least not on the scale of planets.

In the United States, the flow of rivers is usually measured in cubic feet per second or cfs. There are about 28.3 liters in a cubic foot, so our salt water river we're introducing (ignoring any time dilation effects) has just over 14,000 cfs. This is roughly a normal flow for the Colorado river in the Grand Canyon and is a tiny fraction of the 650,000 cfs of the Mississippi averages at its mouth.

So while introducing a new river would certainly have major local effects, it would not come close to destroying Narnia. As other commenter have pointed out it would take millennia to transfer enough volume to significantly affect ocean levels.

madaco
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby madaco » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:44 pm UTC

Denswei wrote:Someone in Narnia dropped their end of the portal into their ocean, and flooded the Earth. [removed]


The other end is a forest, near a lantern.
I found my old forum signature to be awkward, so I'm changing it to this until I pick a better one.

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 0969: "Delta-P"

Postby speising » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:45 pm UTC

Biggest problem with the formula: wouldn't all those fur coats slow the flow considerably?


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests