Sign in to follow this  
random

The rate of Antarctic melting has nearly tripled in the past five years

Recommended Posts

The Antarctic ice sheet has lost more than 2,500 billion tonnes of ice in the past 25 years and nearly half of that has happened since 2012.

An international team of polar scientists found that melting in Antarctica has jumped sharply from an average of 76 billion tonnes per year prior to 2012, to around 219 billion tonnes each year between 2012 and 2017.

That's adding 0.6 of a millimetre to sea levels each year. Antarctica stores enough water to raise global sea levels by 58 metres, and has contributed 7.6 millimetres since 1992, according to the research published in Nature today.

The latest data is a continuation of previous assessments known as the Ice sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE), which began in 2011 and tracks ice-sheet loss from 1992 onwards.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news. Another 1 to 1.5m sea level rise and I'll have a deep waterfront.

Also the Balleny Islands might become ice-free opening up a new island archipelago to cruise in.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good.  Penguins are such creepy little fuckers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Good.  Penguins are such creepy little fuckers!

No they're not, they're really nice. A bit rich and dark meat, but nice.

It's the leopard seals that are bad bastards. I almost got one sleeping on an ice floe once but it got off just in time when I ran the floe down.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to need pretty much the whole 158 meters to get my waterfront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

I'm going to need pretty much the whole 158 meters to get my waterfront.

I keep threatening to buy some Property just east of Parkland or Desert Hot Springs CA or somewhere in that area.  Because when the big quake kicks off in Kali and the Western half of that shithole state falls into the ocean, I'll have some instant beachfront property.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, random said:

The Antarctic ice sheet has lost more than 2,500 billion tonnes of ice in the past 25 years and nearly half of that has happened since 2012.

An international team of polar scientists found that melting in Antarctica has jumped sharply from an average of 76 billion tonnes per year prior to 2012, to around 219 billion tonnes each year between 2012 and 2017.

That's adding 0.6 of a millimetre to sea levels each year. Antarctica stores enough water to raise global sea levels by 58 metres, and has contributed 7.6 millimetres since 1992, according to the research published in Nature today.

The latest data is a continuation of previous assessments known as the Ice sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE), which began in 2011 and tracks ice-sheet loss from 1992 onwards.

At that rate, 100 years from today the water will be this much higher. Trudeau may need higher lifts. We are all gonna die. Actually we will.

Captued2dere.thumb.JPG.cbac551915deab8ac7aa481958ce7887.JPG

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, random said:

The Antarctic ice sheet has lost more than 2,500 billion tonnes of ice in the past 25 years and nearly half of that has happened since 2012.

An international team of polar scientists found that melting in Antarctica has jumped sharply from an average of 76 billion tonnes per year prior to 2012, to around 219 billion tonnes each year between 2012 and 2017.

That's adding 0.6 of a millimetre to sea levels each year. Antarctica stores enough water to raise global sea levels by 58 metres, and has contributed 7.6 millimetres since 1992, according to the research published in Nature today.

The latest data is a continuation of previous assessments known as the Ice sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE), which began in 2011 and tracks ice-sheet loss from 1992 onwards.

.....except the sea level rise is steady at 0.3 milletres per year.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I keep threatening to buy some Property just east of Parkland or Desert Hot Springs CA or somewhere in that area.  Because when the big quake kicks off in Kali and the Western half of that shithole state falls into the ocean, I'll have some instant beachfront property.  

That's why I keep my Visalia house....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

 

Captued2dere.thumb.JPG.cbac551915deab8ac7aa481958ce7887.JPG

Nailing jack, you are one obsessive, CREE PEE mutherfucker.  i have to give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Nailing jack, you are one obsessive, CREE PEE mutherfucker.  i have to give you that.

Oh Sorry that is not me in the Gold Outfit. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, random said:

The Antarctic ice sheet has lost more than 2,500 billion tonnes of ice in the past 25 years and nearly half of that has happened since 2012.

An international team of polar scientists found that melting in Antarctica has jumped sharply from an average of 76 billion tonnes per year prior to 2012, to around 219 billion tonnes each year between 2012 and 2017.

That's adding 0.6 of a millimetre to sea levels each year. Antarctica stores enough water to raise global sea levels by 58 metres, and has contributed 7.6 millimetres since 1992, according to the research published in Nature today.

The latest data is a continuation of previous assessments known as the Ice sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE), which began in 2011 and tracks ice-sheet loss from 1992 onwards.

Except on the Great Barrier Reef where falling sea levels have caused coral bleaching. The worlds climate change scientists should play a game of dodge ball to sort this question out once and for all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, warbird said:

.....except the sea level rise is steady at 0.3 milletres per year.......

This is Warpedbird

His name is Warpedbird

Warpedbird knows fuckall about science but he is still willing to make a complete fuckwit of himself by contradicting those who do know

Warpedbird continues to post numbers with no attribution.

Smarten the fuck up Warpedbird!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Except on the Great Barrier Reef where falling sea levels have caused coral bleaching. The worlds climate change scientists should play a game of dodge ball to sort this question out once and for all. 

The only reason there is falling sea levels on the GBR is because the nearby landmass sucks so much its sucking all the water away.

I'll be here all week.  Try the veal.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice is evil, it ruins scotch. The Scorch should hire Jeffie to bomb all that ice back to the ice,  errr, Stone Age...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, random said:

complete fuckwit of himself by contradicting those who do know

You are now a climate scientist? I thought you were claiming to be a structural engineer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

You are now a climate scientist? I thought you were claiming to be a structural engineer?

See OP.  Can you read?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, random said:

This is Warpedbird

His name is Warpedbird

Warpedbird knows fuckall about science but he is still willing to make a complete fuckwit of himself by contradicting those who do know

Warpedbird continues to post numbers with no attribution.

Smarten the fuck up Warpedbird!

The numbers have been posted in every fucking climate thread since day one. Try U of Colorado. Or Google it yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

You are now a climate scientist? I thought you were claiming to be a structural engineer?

He read it on the internet. It must be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, warbird said:

The numbers have been posted in every fucking climate thread since day one. Try U of Colorado. Or Google it yourself. 

Al-Pacino-LaughSmoking.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Except on the Great Barrier Reef where falling sea levels have caused coral bleaching. The worlds climate change scientists should play a game of dodge ball to sort this question out once and for all. 

How many times a day do the levels fall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey was NASA shit for brains stupid 3 years ago and if so will these clowns be just as wrong in 2021 I believe nothing that climate science says. They lie and change with the season their excuses for being wrong all the time.  

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lying Malarky said:

How many times a day do the levels fall?

For most of its length twice, but at the northern end they have double high waters for it can be up to 8 times each day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

 I believe nothing that climate science says. 

Yet you believe they Chairman Trump has solved the Korean Nuke problem and that an Angel was handing out plates in upstate New York in the 1820's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never mind the 'climate', the 'data', let alone the politics, etc. any monkey fukwhit who says we're not mindlessly destroying the biosphere across the board is one twisted fuck with a hell of a character flaw. 

nonetheless, nationally in 'murica, may 2018 was the warmest may ever recorded. fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

Warpedbird knows fuck all

Save those keystrokes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

 

Warpedbird knows fuckall about science ......

sl_ns_global.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, warbird said:

.....except the sea level rise is steady at 0.3 milletres per year.......

There's the quote fuckwit.

You have the number wrong by a factor of 10 and you can't spell.

Al-Pacino-LaughSmoking.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, random said:

There's the quote fuckwit.

You have the number wrong by a factor of 10 and you can't spell.

Al-Pacino-LaughSmoking.gif

3 or .3 is not 6!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, warbird said:

3 or .3 is not 6!

So you who can't understand decimal points, are continuing to embarrass yourself.

You will get it right one day ... maybe.

Al-Pacino-LaughSmoking.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the lefty loony losers have the balls to say if NASA was blowing Bullshit 3 years ago when the said Antarctic Ice mass was increasing. Or why theis new report is magically right when 3 years ago NASA with its satellites and gorong measurements got it wrong. 

I choose wisely to ignore all the BS from the Global Warming Industrial Complex. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

None of the lefty loony losers have the balls to say if NASA was blowing Bullshit 3 years ago when the said Antarctic Ice mass was increasing. Or why theis new report is magically right when 3 years ago NASA with its satellites and gorong measurements got it wrong. 

I choose wisely to ignore all the BS from the Global Warming Industrial Complex. 

Please provide the link to the post you made claiming an increase.  I've never seen a true NASA website ever look that shoddy and it is something a 7yo could put together in about 15 mins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Please provide the link to the post you made claiming an increase.  I've never seen a true NASA website ever look that shoddy and it is something a 7yo could put together in about 15 mins. 

Thank you for another golden opportunity to make you look like a moron.

Post # 22 in this thread and the Nasa Link to their web page designed by a 7 year old is given below.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, random said:

So you who can't understand decimal points, are continuing to embarrass yourself.

You will get it right one day ... maybe.

Al-Pacino-LaughSmoking.gif

Thumbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Cal is NASA the one piling on the BS or is the current "Global warming study" which is the subject of this thread the real stinker and predict for us what the consensus will be in 2020 when iceSat-2 is online. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

NASA lied to us.....

dfcsf.thumb.JPG.57eb7f24b4262e3876d38438551a4136.JPG

 

Lets try something here.  Mass of snow does not equal mass of ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Laker said:

Lets try something here.  Mass of snow does not equal mass of ice.

Uhhmmm,  where does the ice come from? Mass is Mass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

So Cal is NASA the one piling on the BS or is the current "Global warming study" which is the subject of this thread the real stinker and predict for us what the consensus will be in 2020 when iceSat-2 is online. 

Thanks for link.  I've actually met Jay Zwally back when I was doing SAR ice work.  Altimeter measurements were never that accurate when I was in that field so I kind of buy in to the comments made by Ben Smith at the end of the article.  I'll see if I can dig up the published article and look at the details. The inherent resolution of altimeters is limited by pulse length so there is some inference done on the received pulse to determine height.  Even with pulse compression, resolution is not going to be on an inch-scale. Interesting conclusion in any case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Laker said:

Lets try something here.  Mass of snow does not equal mass of ice.

Snow compresses over time to form ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Laker said:

Lets try something here.  Mass of snow does not equal mass of ice.

Let's try this: The title says "MASS GAIN" no mention of snow. If the mass of frozen water is increasing then it isn't rising sea levels is it. 

Let's also try this:  Which is heavier a kilogram of Ice or a kilogram of snowpack? 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Thanks for link.  I've actually met Jay Zwally back when I was doing SAR ice work.  Altimeter measurements were never that accurate when I was in that field so I kind of buy in to the comments made by Ben Smith at the end of the article.  I'll see if I can dig up the published article and look at the details. The inherent resolution of altimeters is limited by pulse length so there is some inference done on the received pulse to determine height.  Even with pulse compression, resolution is not going to be on an inch-scale. Interesting conclusion in any case.  

Cool. Here is the resolution spec for IceSat 1

Utilize the Cross-Over Analysis Technique for Ice Data:

  • Provide Spatial Grid Resolution of Less Than 10 Km. in Any Direction
  • Assume Averaging "Box" of 200 Km. Square for any Given DataSet Reduction (Worst Case Elevation Error Tolerance Conditions)
  • Maximize Angle Between Cross Over Tracks Up to 90 degrees Maximum
  • Provide Post-Facto Mean Elevation Error of 1 cm. or Less
  • Be Able to Measure Localized Regional (10000 sq. Km.) Topographiesto as Small a Spatial Grid Resolution as 1 Km. Square After Accumulationof 5 Years of Data Within That Region

The nass study use on the ground sampling to correlate and calibrate the measurements. An analogy is differential gps. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Shoulders of ICESat

From 2003 to 2009, the ICESat mission provided multi-year elevation data needed to determine ice sheet mass balance as well as cloud property information, especially for stratospheric clouds common over polar areas. It also provided topography and vegetation data around the globe, in addition to the polar-specific coverage over the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Following ICESat, NASA began an airborne campaign called Operation IceBridge. The mission of IceBridge is to collect data on changing polar land and sea ice and maintain continuity of measurements between the first ICESat and ICESat-2 missions. IceBridge, which began in in 2009, is currently funded until 2019. The planned two-year overlap with ICESat-2 will help scientists validate the satellite’s measurements.

Icesat.png Illustration of the first ICESat. (NASA)

The extensive data IceBridge has gathered over the Greenland ice sheet during its six years of operations have provided an improved picture of the surface, the bed and the internal structures of Greenland’s ice sheet and allowed scientists to create more accurate models of glacier contribution to sea level rise. As for sea ice, IceBridge’s measurements of the thickness of sea ice and its snow cover have assisted in improving forecasts for summertime melt, enhanced the understanding of variations in ice thickness distribution from year to year, and up-dated the climatology of the snow depth over sea ice. IceBridge also flies yearly campaigns to measure the Antarctic ice sheet and surrounding sea ice.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between 2-4 time more accurate than IceSat-1

ICESat-2 Technical Requirements

  1. ICESat-2 shall produce an ice surface elevation product that enables determination of ice-sheet elevation change rates to an accuracy of better than or equal to 0.4 cm/yr on an annual basis.
  2. ICESat-2 shall produce an ice surface elevation product that enables determination of annual surface elevation change rates on outlet glaciers to an accuracy of better than or equal to 0.25 m/yr over areas of 100 km2 for year-to-year averages.  
  3. ICESat-2 shall produce an ice surface elevation product that enables determination of surface elevation change rates for dynamic ice features that are intersected by its set of repeated ground-tracks to an accuracy of better than or equal to 0.4 m/yr along 1-km track segments.
  4. ICESat-2 shall produce an ice surface elevation product that enables resolution of winter (accumulation) and summer (ablation) ice-sheet elevation change to 10 cm at 25-km-by-25-km spatial scales.  
  5. ICESat-2 shall provide monthly surface elevation products to enable, when sea surface height references (leads) are available and under clear sky conditions, the determination of sea-ice freeboard to an uncertainty of less than or equal to 3 cm along 25-km segments for the Arctic and Southern Oceans; the track spacing should be less than or equal to 35 km at 70 degrees latitude on a monthly basis.
  6. ICESat-2 shall make measurements that span a minimum of three years.
  7. ICESat-2 shall produce an ice surface elevation product that, in conjunction with ICESat-1, enables determination of elevation changes on a decadal time scale.
  8. ICESat-2 shall produce elevation measurements that enable independent determination of global vegetation height, with a ground track spacing of less than 2 km over a two-year period.
  9. The ICESat-2 Project shall conduct a calibration and validation program to verify delivered data meet the requirements in item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 above.
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Laker said:

Lets try something here.  Mass of snow does not equal mass of ice.

I think you meant density

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Let's try this: The title says "MASS GAIN" no mention of snow. If the mass of frozen water is increasing then it isn't rising sea levels is it. 

Let's also try this:  Which is heavier a kilogram of Ice or a kilogram of snowpack? 

She's a witch, she's a witch!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

So Cal is NASA the one piling on the BS or is the current "Global warming study" which is the subject of this thread the real stinker and predict for us what the consensus will be in 2020 when iceSat-2 is online. 

That study  study has since been shown to be wrong.  The the findings were correct for just a few years of data, not for the long term.  It's like doing a traffic count at 3:00 a.m. as representative of the freeway for the day.

But that doesn't stop fuckwits from doing the usual cherry-picking. 

So you righty-shills, are you saying there is no climate change caused by burning black stuff?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The seas are rising.  The gauge at Parrsboro keeps going up.  The brine limit on the river keeps advancing up stream.  Neither would be happening without sea rise.  In North America, the "fresh water dam" in the Davis Strait is keeping a lot of the Arctic melt from the Atlantic side, but over here on the Pacific, well we just had a tax referendum for higher dykes on the river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, are you double-dog sure that ICE-Sat measures the density of this new ice?  Hard to do with a satellite. That stuff way down at the bottom of the glacier that is melting is pretty dense stuff. And sure lasts long in my drink.  And sure causes bubbly pops as it melts, unlike common ice cubes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

That study  study has since been shown to be wrong.  The the findings were correct for just a few years of data, not for the long term.  It's like doing a traffic count at 3:00 a.m. as representative of the freeway for the day.

But that doesn't stop fuckwits from doing the usual cherry-picking. 

So you righty-shills, are you saying there is no climate change caused by burning black stuff?

You are a complete idiot who just made up a lot of BS. Produce a link that says what you just wrote if not you made it up.Liar.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

So you righty-shills, are you saying there is no climate change caused by burning black stuff?

Is that a conclusion reached in the study you are talking about?

" We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 1992–2017 (5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain. "

Yeah, you might say that number is a little uncertain.

" Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modelling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017 "

You might say that number is pretty uncertain as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

You are a complete idiot who just made up a lot of BS. Produce a link that says what you just wrote if not you made it up.Liar.

 

Malarky.thumb.jpg.7cca97b0b80f2e9b1db5d68392c0a11a.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Science is not supposed to be a system of  beliefs. The majority of Americans believe in a God but I doubt you think much of that consensus. I first took issue with climate science when they started to use terms like consensus. There are a lot of scientific consensuses in the dustbin of history. 

Settled science is the ultimate oxymoron. 

Now to your article written by a BA in English. He starts with this  ...

The study has drawn massive amounts of media attention — and no wonder. It contradicts numerous prior scientific claims, including a 2012 study in Science by a small army of polar scientists, a study from earlier this year in Earth and Planetary Science Letters (which found 92 gigatons of net losses per year) and this 2014 study in Geophysical Research Letters (160 gigatons of net losses per year). It also contradicts assertions by the leading consensus body of climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stated in 2013 that Antarctica is “losing mass” and that this process is accelerating. That statement was itself based on multiple studies showing Antarctic ice loss.

Instead of buttressing his case he destroys it completely in one paragraph. 

  1. a 2012 study in Science s (which found 92 gigatons of net losses per year)
  2. 2014 study in Geophysical Research Letters (160 gigatons of net losses per year)
  3. U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stated in 2013 that Antarctica is “losing mass” and that this process is accelerating.
    1. IPCC consensus 2012  -97 Gt yr-1 +- 38 Gt yr-1
    2. IPCC Shepherd et al. (2012)   -88 ± 35 Gt yr-1

What I did not  put in the above list a series on studies listed in the Ipcc AR5 report he references that showed an increase. 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf

And of course you have the NASA estimate of a gain of 83  Gt yr-1 

That's quite a range and large error bars to be crowing about a consensus. 

Your "Article as opposed to a study" then adds 

Zwally fully stands by the new research. “We have a very high confidence in our results,” he says. “We have examined the accuracy of our results quite carefully, we believe they’re accurate, and in the paper we report why they differ from other methods, and provide constructive critiques of why they differ.”

In an interview, Zwally also reiterated the notion that GRACE is more sensitive to how one treats glacial isostatic adjustment — clearly, a key point of dispute here.

I would expect a host of attacks on any NASA study that contradict one of the foundational tenets of Global Warming. Heretics get the pitchfork.

My whole point is this. The papers are all over the map. they can't all be right. I perceive that GW evangelists pick the one that, as you said, "confirms what most of us always believed. "

.... that is not how science is done. 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

That study  study has since been shown to be wrong.  The the findings were correct for just a few years of data, not for the long term.  It's like doing a traffic count at 3:00 a.m. as representative of the freeway for the day.

But that doesn't stop fuckwits from doing the usual cherry-picking. 

So you righty-shills, are you saying there is no climate change caused by burning black stuff?

It’s the would-be Shallow State....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2018 at 10:13 AM, LB 15 said:

For most of its length twice, but at the northern end they have double high waters for it can be up to 8 times each day.

I remember when I could rise 8 times a day......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Amati said:

It’s the would-be Shallow State....

Shallow end of the gene pool, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 6:26 PM, random said:

 

 

Nothing beats a cartoon to prove a theroy. It's like toothpaste ads where a actor with a lab coat and glasses claims how 'Clinical trials' prove that the enamel regrows if you use their brand. She then shows a folder with 'Clinical trial' written on it and shows a cartoon of a tooth with stuff spreading over it.

YCMTSU.

Or maybe you can...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this