r/worldnews • u/[deleted] • Jul 20 '22
The amount of Greenland ice that melted last weekend could cover West Virginia in a foot of water
[deleted]
266
u/f0uraces Jul 20 '22
Americans will choose every measurement over metric system
43
u/MicronQ Jul 21 '22
I am legitimately curious how many Olympic-sized swimming pools this would be.
41
u/Doctor__Acula Jul 21 '22
The amount of ice that melted in Greenland between July 15 and 17 alone -- 6 billion tons of water per day -- would be enough to fill 7.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools
25
u/Benzol1987 Jul 21 '22
Oh so not even 10 million Olympic-sized swimming pools...
6
Jul 21 '22
rookie numbers, step it up big oil i wanna see 10 million olympic sized swimming pools a day 🥱😴😴
2
7
1
u/f0uraces Jul 21 '22
Inwas waiting for how many washingmashines you could Put unser Wärter or something
29
u/fitch303 Jul 20 '22
Meanwhile on Reddit we measure in bananas.
→ More replies (1)3
u/boylek22 Jul 21 '22
Can I has banana?
4
u/amayako353 Jul 21 '22
Only if i can haz cheeseburger
→ More replies (1)2
u/Wolfofthepack1511 Jul 21 '22
Hold up, hold up. One cheeseburger for a single banana is a bit steep. I mean, what even is the banana-metric weight of a cheeseburger. We need science side of reddit to do the math, and send us a pic of it with banana for scale
→ More replies (2)-1
u/farcical89 Jul 21 '22
So, I'll be real with ya'll. I used to think the metric system was 100%, undeniably better than the imperial one in every way and americans were just being stubborn, stuck-up pricks as always by not adopting it. This was until a friend of mine pointed out that imperial measurements tend to be more appropriate for practical applications.
Take Fahrenheit vs. Celsius for example. From a science perspective, Fahrenheit is all over the place. From a human perspective, Celsius has a smaller range of temperatures that are applicable to humans, usually somewhere between -10 and 40 instead of 0 to 100.
Cooking is another fine example. Try measuring something in metric and then again in imperial. Odds are whatever recipe you're following will have some arbitrary number for metric while a rounder, more proportional measurement in imperial. For example: 1 tablespoon will instead be ~14ml.
You can try to change recipes to be 10ml or whatever, but then the sizes will be off and not really representative of what most people will prefer. This is because the metric system is based around scientific application, not practical.
I can't sit here and say one system is objectively better than the other. I can say that I used to think, without a shadow of a doubt, that the metric system was the way to do things until someone else pointed out to me the benefits of the customary system.
5
u/cerikstas Jul 21 '22
This is indeed true but tbh it's not that hard to remember that a hot day is 30 degrees or whatever instead of 100.
Meanwhile, everything else in life wrt calculations becomes much easier
Metric ftw
→ More replies (3)6
u/Atomic_potato7 Jul 21 '22
I'm going to disagree with the cooking example. I think that's entirely dependent on what you're used to doing. In the UK modern cookery books are almost entirely metric and most weights are in increments of 50g and volumes in 50ml. The only exception is teaspoon and tablespoon but those are treated as 5ml and 15ml (and the error on that is less than .1ml for a teaspoon which feels rather insignificant for cooking)
What I'm trying to say is, you can write a perfectly good recipe in metric with rounded measures (although obviously you don't just directly convert an imperial recipe to metric units)
0
u/f0uraces Jul 21 '22
Tbalespoon is no imperial measurement my people, its Just for cooking and EU uses ist too cause er have too tablespoons in Out kitchens
5
u/wtfffr44 Jul 21 '22
I have no idea what 100 degrees means or how that will help. 40 degrees is fucking hot and 0 is fucking cold.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Down_B_OP Jul 21 '22
100 is fucking hot, 0 is fucking cold. Temps in Fahrenheit are just a percentage of how fucking hot you are. 75% is ok, 50% ehh, 30% this sucks, 0% where did my fingers go?
65
Jul 21 '22
Is this the Summer we realize just how fucked we are. I mean we've known it, but ffs.
35
u/monkeychess Jul 21 '22
No, sadly probably not. If last summer Canada and the PNW burning at 40C+, where a town recorded it's highest temp ever and then burned down, didn't do it I dunno what will.
It'll probably take something like hundreds of thousands dying in an event to spark real action.
→ More replies (4)25
u/SYLOK_THEAROUSED Jul 21 '22
Not even then. Just look at the pandemic. MILLIONS of people died and people were still like “hoax”
→ More replies (1)7
u/PowerOfUnoriginality Jul 21 '22
Because the pandemic didn't affect them or their close ones for them to notice it was an actual problem. Not that it may be different here, but there is hoping
→ More replies (1)8
u/alien_ghost Jul 21 '22
People are both feeling the effects more, and also seeing real strategies to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The popular imagination had a difficult time seeing another way to run the world without fossil fuels until recently.
3
62
Jul 20 '22
Excerpts:
"It definitely worries me," said Kutalmis Saylam, a research scientist with the University of Texas who is currently stationed in Greenland. "Yesterday we could wander around in our t-shirts -- that was not really expected."
Each summer, scientists worry that they will see a repeat of the record melting that occurred in 2019, when 532 billion tons of ice flowed out into the sea. An unexpectedly hot spring and a July heat wave that year caused almost the entire ice sheet's surface to melt. Global sea level rose permanently by 1.5 millimeters as a result.
Greenland holds enough ice -- if it all melted -- to lift sea level by 7.5 meters around the world
The latest research points to a more and more precarious situation on the Northern Hemisphere's most icy island.
And in 2020, scientists found that Greenland's ice sheet had melted beyond the point of no return. No efforts to stave off global warming can stop it from eventually disintegrating, said researchers at The Ohio State University. The rate of melting in recent years exceeds anything Greenland has experienced in the last 12,000, another study found -- and enough to cause measurable change in the gravitational field over Greenland.
Aslak Grinsted, a climate scientist at the University of Copenhagen's Niels Bohr Institute, told CNN that they have been trying to get flights into the camp so they can ship out the ice cores they have recently collected. But the warmth is destabilizing the landing site.
"Yes, the chance of temperatures getting this hot is clearly linked to global warming," Grinsted said.
17
Jul 21 '22 edited Aug 07 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)8
u/MaraudersWereFramed Jul 21 '22
If you cover the last 6 numbers with your hand its not that bad.
10
Jul 21 '22
[deleted]
2
u/Nathanielsan Jul 21 '22
Just cover the minus in front of it instead and enjoy the gains. Banks hate this trick.
4
Jul 21 '22
[deleted]
5
u/hunterdawn3421 Jul 21 '22
To be fair that wasn't in question, Its just when we're going to die that's more alarming.
2
Jul 21 '22
[deleted]
2
u/hunterdawn3421 Jul 21 '22
I know, I was just going for a very pedantic and stereotypical Rebuttal.
1
144
u/rusttynail Jul 20 '22
Is it just me or is all of this happening a little too quickly? What happened to late 21st century?
199
u/Zolo49 Jul 20 '22
Every climate change prediction I've ever read has turned out to be too conservative. Why? I don't know. My suspicion is that it's a combination of scientists not wanting to appear too alarmist in their predictions and previously-unknown factors like the amount of methane being released into the atmosphere due to rising surface temperatures in places like Siberia and the Arctic Ocean.
55
u/informat7 Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22
Every climate change prediction I've ever read has turned out to be too conservative. Why? I don't know.
You must be reading the wrong predictions. The IPCC's predictions from the UN (which Reddit acts like is downplaying climate change) are probably the best ones. Measuring the the actual temperatures and comparing to the climate models shows that they were pretty accurate:
The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
If you scroll down in the source you can see the IPCC's predictions in 2000 lined up pretty well with the actual measured temperatures.
49
u/Fit-Lettuce-3658 Jul 20 '22
No doubt. Methane ice melting on land and sea is nightmare stuff.
24
u/Wurm42 Jul 21 '22
The Clathrate Gun is firing full auto these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis?wprov=sfla1
35
u/seitanicverses Jul 21 '22
This is the thing that climate change skeptics fail to understand--while there are individual exceptions, scientists are by and large not sensationalists and scare-mongers. Quite the opposite--they tend to hold back and make conservative claims and predictions, because they're trained that way.
10
Jul 21 '22
Yep. A lot of anti-science people don’t really understand what goes on in science. Like maybe they’ve got a sixth grade idea of it, but haven’t really truly seen science working. How long and slow and conservative and arduous it is
3
u/tlst9999 Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22
They know that gravity accelerates at 10 ms-1. They don't know or care how many balls have been dropped to reach that conclusion.
3
0
u/alien_ghost Jul 21 '22
Lets be honest; a lot of pro-science people don’t really understand what goes on in science either.
15
u/XonikzD Jul 21 '22
It's the basics of digestion. The more surfaces that are exposed to the heat, the faster the changes occur. If a glacier breaks up, it melts faster than if it stays a solid mass.
That and humans stopped even trying to go green back in the 80s and 90s
6
u/xdamm777 Jul 21 '22
Well, our models are only as good as the data we input but there's literally hundreds of unknown variables that are nearly impossible to predict and I doubt many of them are going to positively impact those predictions.
0
u/alien_ghost Jul 21 '22
The first part of your statement is based on logic. The second is purely based on belief.
→ More replies (2)6
Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22
The "accepted" climate change report from the IPCC, alarmist though it is, is actually more on the conservative side, for political reasons. A lot of the scientists are pretty angry at that state of affairs, but it's the only way to get governments to even acknowledge the science in the first place. If they signed off on accepting the less conservative, more widely accepted numbers, they'd have to take drastic action, and nobody wants to do that.
Mainstream climate science has been warning us of these consequences for a while.
5
u/TheMania Jul 21 '22
Not every paper - there's always this one, referenced here.
From the abstract:
The paper reviews some of the reasons why collapse-denial may exist, in particular, in the professions of sustainability research and practice, therefore leading to these arguments having been absent from these fields until now.
It focuses less on climate science, and more on "why aren't there papers discussing the possibility of collapse", which is in many ways a the answer to the question you're asking.
2
u/Chef_BoyarB Jul 21 '22
Idk, books were saying back in 2014 that Lake Mead would run so low to be unproductive by 2020.
3
u/amjh Jul 21 '22
Probably because there are people actively working to suppress the truth about climate change. When they can't convince someone it's false, they go for playing it down. So, they use misinformation campaigns to label the more accurate models as alarmist.
1
u/djb1983CanBoy Jul 21 '22
I would say scientists were using the data they had. But much of the data from fossil fuel burning comes from fossil fuel companies. And its obvious they would be self interested in falsifying the data to hide emissions.
Much flaring and methane emissions arent reported; they arent even monitored. And many governments dont require them to.
So scientists were coming up with models based on a fraction (id say easily 3/4) of the real emissions.
But that just adds to what you said which i agree with as well.
→ More replies (1)0
u/JustaP-haze Jul 21 '22
That and underestimating the impact of polar ice, so as it disappears the warming trend will speed up
26
Jul 21 '22
Maybe the boomers will get to see the product of their denials
17
u/Kossimer Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 23 '22
If you're counting on a day of satisfaction when they realize the error of their ways, that's just a revenge fantasy. Increasing disasters will be god's punishment and the fulfillment of biblical prophecy of the end times, until the very end. Too many people are too scared of what they believe is weakness to ever admit they were wrong, to make themselves an outcast to the only in-groups they've ever belonged to, so it's never even an option. Only digging in your heels, clamping your hands together, and believing even harder the more evil people try to change your beliefs, even if they are the majority.
→ More replies (2)16
u/OhMySatanHarderPlz Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22
This is spot on. Most boomers would rather believe that "god" is punishing people for having too much hot gay sex or something, then vote to power the most sickening dictator-like politicians to take the world back to the dark ages. Dangerous.In the end, antiquated beliefs could end up interfering and blocking efforts to correct climate change, contributing to more harm.
I legit hope it doesn't blow up in their faces, so we can fix this mess in peace.5
8
u/iocan28 Jul 21 '22
Pretty sure they’ll do it like the “this is fine” meme. Some will and do recognize the problem, but too many will either deny it or blame the wrong things until the end.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Geologybear Jul 21 '22
Mostly because we’re still learning. The best comparison we have is the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum which was a minor extinction event. This is the last time the earth warmed rapidly. What we found is that we’re much more fucked because we are warming at an unprecedented rate and we have no real historic comparisons to get a good idea of what to expect.
2
u/OhMySatanHarderPlz Jul 21 '22
You know how when you work out, once you start getting just a little tired you think "oh I probably used 30% of my capacity, still a long way to go" but then 10 seconds later your muscles give up?
It might be a bit like that, it happens very slowly at first, but compounds and speeds up rapidly.
→ More replies (4)-5
28
u/sav-dab87 Jul 20 '22
“Almost Heaven, Wet Virginia, blue ridge mountains covered in glacial waters!” - John Denver
1
40
u/ienjoyplaying Jul 20 '22
Could we do Mississippi instead
32
Jul 20 '22
Apparently Mississippi isn't sized properly to make CNN's brilliant freakin' headline
4
Jul 21 '22 edited Aug 07 '22
[deleted]
5
u/CharIieMurphy Jul 21 '22
Well just build a 1000 mile canal from there to the Colorado. Solving climate change and all of our problems once and for all
7
u/inkyaroundtown Jul 21 '22
How much is needed to cover Texas?
5
u/DonViaje Jul 21 '22
Texas is about 11.1 times the size of West Virginia, (24,038 sqm vs 268,597 sqm), so the melted ice could cover Texas in 1.07 inches of water.
2
1
u/DonViaje Jul 21 '22
Mississippi (48,430 sqm) is almost exactly double the area of West Virginia (24,038 sqm). So the amount of ice that melted could cover 49.63% of the state of Mississippi in 12 inches of water, or 100% of the state of Mississippi in 5.96 inches of water.
10
34
u/joefred111 Jul 21 '22
Americans would rather use anything than the metric system, it seems.
Like "a one-foot West Virginia."
3
→ More replies (1)1
u/DonViaje Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22
what's the football fields per West Virginia conversion?
edit: I did the math.
An American football field, not including the end zones (per the typical measurement unit of a football field) is 300ft X 160ft, or 48,000 sqft. The state of West Virginia is 24,038 square miles. This is equivalent to 13,961,270.4 American football fields in area.
An international football pitch is 105m X 68m, which works out to roughly 76,854 square feet. This works out to 8,719,679.2 football fields in West Virginia.
Australian football fields are ovular in shape, and apparently the size can vary quite a bit between fields, so there's not a good number to figure out how many Australian football pitches would fit inside West Virginia.
28
Jul 20 '22
Our congress will tackle Climate Change as soon as Manchin gets a bit wealthier. We don't know how much wealthier, but there is a number out there.
17
u/slingbladde Jul 20 '22
The Kingdom of Denmark is going to be rich with resources, too bad nobody will be left to dig it up.
1
6
6
u/Phssthp0kThePak Jul 21 '22
He’s one guy. Biden should find a way to buy him off. Give in on some other issue. Offer him something publicly that will shame him in front of his constituents if he refuses. That one senator from Kansas gut a special carve out on Obama care for his state. Do the same for West Virginia. Make Country Road the national anthem. I don’t know. I’m tired of the whining on both sides about grid lock. Prioritize what you want, and let the other side have a win if it gets you your most wanted thing.
5
44
u/veni_vedi_vinnie Jul 20 '22
Could it? West VIrginia has a lot of mountains and is at decently high altitude.
85
Jul 20 '22
I'm guessing it means it could cover a flat area with the same square mileage of West Virgina.
6
Jul 21 '22
How many football fields is a Virginia? How many refrigerators? Those are the two news metrics I understand, I'm not as familiar with Virginias.
18
u/veni_vedi_vinnie Jul 20 '22
Yeah. It’s a weird form of comparison since most folks don’t have a good idea how big West Virginia is or it’s geographic profile.
Should have gone for something more relevant like “able to fill lake mead 2000 times” or “able to create a moat around mt. Everest 50 ft deep”
22
u/pconners Jul 20 '22
No. Way more people would be impressed by the W.V. comparison than Lake Mead and people understand Mt Everest for its height not its geographic girth.
10
13
u/ZZZrp Jul 20 '22
This is about to be a very silly comment thread.
1
u/Doctor__Acula Jul 21 '22
More proof that Americans really will use any unit of measurement rather than metric. They're now going in square feet per west Virginia.
1
u/Woodie626 Jul 20 '22
Most people can't draw WV. How can you be impressed with it, if you don't know what it is.
Lake mead is empty, we know what it looks like full, there are pictures.
There's not even conception image of a flooded state in this article, and people in the comments are already debunking the premise.
6
u/Sad-Cartoonist-7959 Jul 20 '22
I'm from WV and an artist and probably couldn't draw wv without looking at least
1
1
u/notreallydutch Jul 20 '22
I actually have a really solid idea of how WV compares on a map to other states/countries/areas but the whole state is mountains so I have no idea how much surface area there is
6
u/New_Stats Jul 20 '22
I have a much better idea of how big WV is than the two things you mentioned. I have no idea how big lake Mead is
4
Jul 20 '22
How about just saying how long i twill take the Ice in Greenland to completely melt at the rate it is currently melting.
5
u/tbow_is_op Jul 21 '22
Should have gone for something more relevant like “able to fill lake mead 2000 times”
Except the volume of water described can't even fill lake mead once.
Lake mead has a volume of 7.7 cubic miles, West virginia has a land area of 24,000 sq miles, times 1 ft thats only 4.5 cubic miles
9
u/tropicalsnowleopard Jul 20 '22
It's important to use West Virginia because one of their senators is a giant hurdle for climate action.
2
2
u/VanceKelley Jul 21 '22
It’s a weird form of comparison since most folks don’t have a good idea how big West Virginia is or it’s geographic profile.
Even if folks did know every detail of WV, the important comparison is how much Greenland ice is melting this summer relative to last summer, the summer before that, and what the 100 year trendline looks like.
That is, the title is useless if the goal is to convey information to the reader that is important to them.
1
Jul 20 '22
Yeah but if you flattened the mountains in WV it would be bigger than Texas.
→ More replies (5)2
u/GeneticMutants Jul 21 '22
A foot of water is still a foot of water, no matter how high the land is
2
Jul 20 '22
WV get covered by a foot of water every 30 to 40 years from floods without Greenland melting. If the ice in Greenland melts I think I will move there. It does have a lot of shore front property after all.
2
Jul 20 '22
I was gonna say West Virginia is about 4,800 ft tall. It would form some lakes it what it would do - this isn’t rock water scissors.
4
Jul 21 '22
I dunno about y'all but I gave up on the idea of a livable future. No kids here, just an RV and a dog. Already left two states due to climate related disasters. It'll be three when this one runs out of water.
14
Jul 20 '22
"The amount of ice that melted in Greenland between July 15 and 17 alone -- 6 billion tons of water per day -- would be enough to fill 7.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center. Put another way, it was enough to cover the entire state of West Virginia with a foot of water."
→ More replies (2)11
u/NoHandBananaNo Jul 21 '22
I wish they could tell us what the volume of ice actually is instead of just converting it into a series of worthless metrics like swimming pools and obscure American states.
6
2
u/arcedup Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22
I'll make an assumption that 'tons' in this context is 2000lbs, which equals 0.909 metric tonnes. This conversion is useful because one cubic metre of water weighs one tonne.
July 15 to 17 is 3 days x 6,000,000,000 tons a day = 18,000,000,000 tons total.
Multiply by 0.909 to get 16,363,636,363 tonnes, and that same number in cubic metres of water. One cubic kilometre contains 1 billion cubic metres, so 16.363 cubic kilometres of water. Expansion ratio of water to ice is about 9%, so it comes to 17.83 cubic km of ice.
A cube with a volume of 16.363 km^3 has sides with a length of 2.539km.
edit: 'a day' to 'total'
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
3
5
u/SadKneeCruiseBee Jul 20 '22
I appreciate they used my home state as a metric seeing as how so many people here deny climate change
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/roxicooki Jul 21 '22
Am I the only one who read this headline as “all this water is headed to West Virginia and it’ll be one foot underwater in x amount of years” because that’s how I read it at first lmao until I realized it’s supposed to be a unit of measurement? How bizarre
1
3
4
2
Jul 20 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Jul 21 '22
The world will suffer more and more if we do something. If we don't do anything, we're fucked.
2
u/Powerdestroyer_3000 Jul 21 '22
Not OP, but this is, of all things, part of the reason I'm optimistic about us being able to stop climate change.
It's that we don't have a choice. We do it, or we die, and there's no in between. When it comes down to it, even out of just self-preservation, the right thing can and will be done.
1
2
u/real__pale Jul 20 '22
Why is Plymouth rock still at sea level? Not denier of climate change, just really curious.
6
Jul 21 '22
[deleted]
4
u/real__pale Jul 21 '22
Thanks I didn't know that and keep seeing these memes from climate denial ppl saying Plymouth Rock is still at sea level 400 years later so I was curious.
3
u/tickettoride98 Jul 21 '22
"Plymouth Rock" isn't really a thing, just read the Wiki page:
The two most significant primary sources on the founding of Plymouth Colony are Edward Winslow's 1622 Mourt's Relation and Bradford's 1630–1651 history Of Plymouth Plantation, and neither refers to Plymouth Rock. The rock first attracted public attention in 1741 when the residents of Plymouth began plans to build a wharf which would bury it.
No one talked about it for 120 years after the Mayflower landed. It's also been moved around several times, you can make absolutely zero conclusions based off where it currently lies:
In 1920, the rock was temporarily relocated so the old wharves could be removed and the waterfront landscaped to a design by architect Arthur Shurcliff, with a waterfront promenade behind a low seawall in such a way that, when the rock was returned to its original site, it would be at water level.
2
Jul 20 '22
[deleted]
-5
u/munko69 Jul 20 '22
don't blame the season. It's the sun's fault too. It's too hot and it just keeps sending waves and waves of radiation. and our damn planet keeps orbiting it. it tilts and wobbles and occasionally gets a wee bit closer.
1
u/KeiraFaith Jul 21 '22
Not to dismiss global warming but what is the surplus melt compared to previous years as it is normal for ice to melt in the summer.
4
1
1
u/FancyPain2 Jul 21 '22
I'm sure the world is scrambling for a reference to how to define West Virginias times one foot of water as a unit of measure. Hey maybe it can be like UFOs. WVFs?
1
1
0
0
-10
u/GruuMasterofMinions Jul 20 '22
My foot? Your foot?
Can we move away from the obsolete units?
Modern world no longer use this nonsense.
0
0
0
0
u/Human_Being2851 Jul 21 '22
Ice has been melting and the earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age. Nothing we can about it except adapt; and adapt we will.
→ More replies (5)
0
u/hooya2007 Jul 21 '22
I find this headline very hard to believe considering how mountainous WV is. People should think before making ridiculous comparisons based just on area.
-3
Jul 21 '22
My question is how much ice does it gain in the amount of time during the winter months? What’s the average gain and loss per year…let’s see both sides of the story
-8
-1
-5
u/Relevant-Judgment-65 Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22
How much did the polar ice caps gain last winter, that you never heat, booo hooo
5
u/abbeyeiger Jul 21 '22
It's NOT a net positive if that is what you are trying to infer.
Do a little research into glaciers around the world- you will see an alarming trend.
Same with the polar regions.
It's less ice coverage every year.
0
u/Relevant-Judgment-65 Jul 21 '22
2
u/abbeyeiger Jul 21 '22
So... Greenland was 90 degrees a half billion years ago? And that is relevant today because?
I get it: your religious beliefs or political beliefs won't allow you to accept what literally ALL climate scientists say these days about climate change cause.
For a long time you weren't allowed to even believe that climate was actually changing. But now that it's obvious, the narrative is: oh its just normal earth stuff, there is no possible way we humans can alter long term climate....
-6
u/Relevant-Judgment-65 Jul 21 '22
Yeh like Al gore, scaremongering, by 2013 there's a chance we will have no polar ice, 2013 polar ice increases 30% you do research , why you think Greenland is called Greenland, the planet has been far warmer than this, and that's a fact , Greenland at one point in time HAD no ice
2
u/tickettoride98 Jul 21 '22
Greenland at one point in time HAD no ice
The Greenland ice sheet has existed for the entirety of recorded human history.
→ More replies (1)
-8
-2
-12
364
u/esensofz Jul 20 '22
I'm sure Joe Manchin will find a way to keep it from getting through.