So. What would be the consequence of adding 1 inch to the 7 mile deep ocean.
This is something that could be expressed in a calculus equation. This something
seems beyond NPR forum posters. Why is that?

Perhaps they are students of language and not students of mathematics.

No doubt, Rachel hasn't yet provided the satisfactory answer. Rachel will also explain
Godzilla. When she puts her mind to it, all will be clarified.

To use the science deniers logic the ocean floor sinks every time it rains and rise back every time the rain evaporates.

"I can't stand you (LWW). You're one of the worst people I've ever known...You can rot in hell you pathetic loser."
-Bishop-

"Whether or not its a lie is irrelevant."
-Bishop-

"I have better things to do than worry about fact checking whats being published ..."
-336Robin-

"I support Antifa"
-poolfool1957-

"I have high hopes that you (LWW) and your sympathizers will be led to the gallows."
-9BallPaul-

<snip>
I'm not sure engineering degrees cover as much calculus as a math degree does. Maybe they do.
<snip>

Many moons back I checked that very question. Comparing my BSc (EE) with a 4 year honors program in math I was 1.5 or 2 math classes short. I had enough math classes for a non-honors math degree IIRC.

The weight of the oceans has seen resting on the ocean floor for billions of years.

The science deniers have been fabricating evidence of sea levels rising for decades.

Now this jibba jabba is accepted blindly.

The actual science behind this is no different than claiming the reason we haven’t seen s real Godzilla is that he lives at the bottom of the ocean with sponge bob and has stomped the sea floor down in order to mask what simply must be there.

The oceans are not 7 miles deep (on average-- more like 2.5 miles deep), and most of even the Mariana Trench isn't 7 miles deep either (It reaches a maximum-known depth [slightly less than 7 miles] of 10,994 metres (36,070 ft) (± 40 metres [130 ft]) at a small slot-shaped valley in its floor known as the Challenger Deep, at its southern end.)

As of the last global glaciation, so much water was on land as ice that the sea level was ~400 feet below present day.

So the known plasticity deformation of the sea bed is not in play because of the current decades of sea level rise, but the continuing and increasing effect over time of the gradual buildup of 400 feet more water on top of it, over the past 10,000 years. No calculus is needed to determine the weight of an extra 400 foot column of water on a one square foot subsurface. That's just regular arithmetic for what that volume is, and then the weight of water per volume (with some density assumption).

1 cubic foot of water weighs about 62.30 pounds (for its density at 70 degrees F. If the water is colder, it is denser, and heavier.) A column of water with a cross section area of one foot square, and a height of 400 feet, is 400 cubic feet. It's total weight is just shy of 25,000 pounds.

Your 'seven miles' and 'billions of years' (or any idea it is the extra foot plus of water in the current sea level rise period doing this) is completely wrong.

As is your claim that there is no sea level rise at all going on now.

This is a cartoon level of 'understanding.' In fact, I presume you know better, but have some performance act going on.

The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

Many moons back I checked that very question. Comparing my BSc (EE) with a 4 year honors program in math I was 1.5 or 2 math classes short. I had enough math classes for a non-honors math degree IIRC.

Dave

I wonder if mechanical engineering or civil engineering would need as many math courses as you took. Also, did you need to do that many yourself by degree requirements (or if rather, you chose to do so many, out of interest)?

The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

I wonder if mechanical engineering or civil engineering would need as many math courses as you took. Also, did you need to do that many yourself by degree requirements (or if rather, you chose to do so many, out of interest)?

In my day electrical and engineering physics had greater math loads compared to the other disciplines, all were required classes. We had classes in basic calculus, numeric methods, linear math, statistics, vector calculus (what I remember, that was a few years back now ). In 4 years never had a semester without a math class.

In my day electrical and engineering physics had greater math loads compared to the other disciplines, all were required classes. We had classes in basic calculus, numeric methods, linear math, statistics, vector calculus (what I remember, that was a few years back now ). In 4 years never had a semester without a math class.

Dave

Sure, and thanks. As you know, a math degree also requires a lot of math courses, although including a variety of subjects without direct physical applications. Number theory, group theory, Galois theory (combining the previous two areas), set theory, mathematical logic, Cantor's transfinite number theory, Goedel's incompleteness theorem, catastrophe theory, and etc. More on the abstract math side than calculus and statistics, although those were included also.

The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

This is a cartoon level of 'understanding.' In fact, I presume you know better, but have some performance act going on.

And I presume all your "levels of expertise" on every subject that you blather on and on about here on the forums is from the "cut and paste" university, until you show us all your credentials to convince us that you know what the hell is going on.

And I presume all your "levels of expertise" on every subject that you blather on and on about here on the forums is from the "cut and paste" university, until you show us all your credentials to convince us that you know what the hell is going on.

When I relate what I know without the citations, some demand I show a reference. So I often do so ahead of the demand. I find the references with search terms I already know, and phrases from news items I recall, before I look up a cite.

People are free to draw their own conclusions, and do just that. YMMV, but sometimes, res ipsa loquitur.

The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

Sure, and thanks. As you know, a math degree also requires a lot of math courses, although including a variety of subjects without direct physical applications. Number theory, group theory, Galois theory (combining the previous two areas), set theory, mathematical logic, Cantor's transfinite number theory, Goedel's incompleteness theorem, catastrophe theory, and etc. More on the abstract math side than calculus and statistics, although those were included also.

I was counting (math) course hours. Certainly in a math program the abstract subject classes were options. We were focused on the practical-for-an-engineer courses. Elements of things like set theory and other abstractions were covered in some computing classes.

An interesting concept. Most here provide very little information about their credentials ... some do but unless I've missed it a lot most do not. That does not stop folks from commenting, nor should it. If one can't decide for his/her-self what is credible and what is not that is their problem IMO.

An interesting concept. Most here provide very little information about their credentials ... some do but unless I've missed it a lot most do not. That does not stop folks from commenting, nor should it. If one can't decide for his/her-self what is credible and what is not that is their problem IMO.

Dave <-- BSc(EE) '81

I'm not talking general knowledge, I'm talking the people who come here and spew tons and tons of figures and mumbo-jumbo on every subject from soup to nuts and expect everyone to take them at face value.

We have tons and tons of global warming experts on here, but I've never seen any of them on TV debating the other experts.

I'm not talking general knowledge, I'm talking the people who come here and spew tons and tons of figures and mumbo-jumbo on every subject from soup to nuts and expect everyone to take them at face value.

We have tons and tons of global warming experts on here, but I've never seen any of them on TV debating the other experts.

Like LWW and Slide Rule ? Or like Sofla ?

I've never seen them on TV either .... of course I have no idea what they look like nor do I know their names

The oceans are not 7 miles deep (on average-- more like 2.5 miles deep), and most of even the Mariana Trench isn't 7 miles deep either (It reaches a maximum-known depth [slightly less than 7 miles] of 10,994 metres (36,070 ft) (± 40 metres [130 ft]) at a small slot-shaped valley in its floor known as the Challenger Deep, at its southern end.)

As of the last global glaciation, so much water was on land as ice that the sea level was ~400 feet below present day.

So the known plasticity deformation of the sea bed is not in play because of the current decades of sea level rise, but the continuing and increasing effect over time of the gradual buildup of 400 feet more water on top of it, over the past 10,000 years. No calculus is needed to determine the weight of an extra 400 foot column of water on a one square foot subsurface. That's just regular arithmetic for what that volume is, and then the weight of water per volume (with some density assumption).

1 cubic foot of water weighs about 62.30 pounds (for its density at 70 degrees F. If the water is colder, it is denser, and heavier.) A column of water with a cross section area of one foot square, and a height of 400 feet, is 400 cubic feet. It's total weight is just shy of 25,000 pounds.

Your 'seven miles' and 'billions of years' (or any idea it is the extra foot plus of water in the current sea level rise period doing this) is completely wrong.

As is your claim that there is no sea level rise at all going on now.

This is a cartoon level of 'understanding.' In fact, I presume you know better, but have some performance act going on.

Dear God in Heaven I think you are the guy that argues with the pigeons in the park.

According to NOAA they are 6.855606061 miles deep. I will hang my hat on 7 miles being a close enough remembrance without googling it the first time.

By your tortured logic Lake Superior is not even ankle deep because I've stood in it barely covering my toes.

I seriously am tiring of correcting and tutoring someone who refuses to think, much less learn.

"I can't stand you (LWW). You're one of the worst people I've ever known...You can rot in hell you pathetic loser."
-Bishop-

"Whether or not its a lie is irrelevant."
-Bishop-

"I have better things to do than worry about fact checking whats being published ..."
-336Robin-

"I support Antifa"
-poolfool1957-

"I have high hopes that you (LWW) and your sympathizers will be led to the gallows."
-9BallPaul-