Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
tmcom

Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

883 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest
4 hours ago, tmcom said:

This is ironclad, but you still refuse to see it, l guess we will have to wait some more.

If it's ironclad, we should see the evidence.  Post it.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, tmcom said:

And don't look at Greta, for inspiration, l believe the reason she was so timid and despondent at the rally in Washington is she finally read something like this, and finally snapped out of the Cult she fell for? If l am right, Greta will probably disappear and go back to school. And at least she has a half decent excuse.

Greta is a poster-child, nothing more.  She's a figure-head for a PR effort.  She would be nothing without adults pushing her from behind the scenes.  And you're right:  she'll probably go back to school and disappear from the headlines.  Indeed, if she is ever to be more than she is, she will have to do so.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
9 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

:lol:  "The coastlines around the world don't show it"  :lol:

Yes, thought as much, no evidence, only nervous laughter!

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

High and low tides precess.  That is, they change time by about an hour each day.  Besides that, the day-time tide is always higher than the night-time tide.  And then there are spring tides which occur when sun, moon and earth are aligned and neep tides that occur when they aren't.  So to know how high the tide is so you can correct for it, you have to know date and time-of-day.  Your pictures don't show time-of-day.

Getting the time wrong by an hour would more than offset sea level rise over a12-year period.

You must be a bigger lubber than I am not to know this.  Where were you when they talked about it in gradeschool?

Doug

Geesh, Dough cut back on the posts, l want the next rung as well, but l am not going to post by brains out to do it! And flimsy excuse, covers that.

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I usually post information obtained from peer-reviewed journals.  I don't see you posting any scientific information at all.  Don't you believe in your cause enough to post some evidence?

Doug

I posted up to 900 peer reviewed papers that Gore used, which you  have ignored or forgotten about, so go and dig for it.

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Why would a casual observer note a sea level rise of 3 inches in 25 years?  You need to keep records if you're going to see this stuff.

Doug

3 inches, eventhough we can't really see any indication of it, in the above example. l guess that means it could also be the .08cm rise over the last 100 years, which we deniers believe in.

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

If it's ironclad, we should see the evidence.  Post it.

Doug

Already posted the FiJi island AU data, but that goes in one ear and out the other, as does pretty much everything else.

I keep forgetting that climate change is a cult with fanatics that are not even aware of those facts!

I guess this cult will be merged with the flat earth one before long.

Unless it already has, lol.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

tqPP2ra.jpg

2010 on the right, 2019 left, (l had to reverse the right hand one, and match the scale, to get an even match).

6U0gQE2.jpg

But almost 10 years and high tide water levels match as does the ocean levels.

I guess that means ocean levels are rising at an accelerated pace, and the great flood is around the corner, lol. :P

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2010&month=9

https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=2019&country=29

September 17, 2019 full moon,  9 years ago, no full moon, and no difference in sea levels, so that one is out.

I guess we are doomed, lol.

:lol:

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

So, the high tide on two different days, 10 years apart, in one specific place, looks about the same, ergo global sea levels aren't rising? :lol:

You do understand that the tide varies from day to day?   In some places by as much as several feet between the highest and lowest high tides over the course of a month.  With ambient meteorological conditions also affecting it.  And that changes in tides also vary from place to place.   With other factors, apart from just sea levels rises due rising temps/ice melt, also involved (like isostasy and changes in ocean currents).  And that even if, globally, sea levels are rising, in some places, the average high tides may nonetheless be falling?

So you need to show the actual, recorded, high tide, averaged over a year, for, say, a few hundred different locations around the world,  unless you want to be seen as just another ignorant, gullible, cherry-picker :tu:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
46 minutes ago, Essan said:

So, the high tide on two different days, 10 years apart, in one specific place, looks about the same, ergo global sea levels aren't rising? :lol:

You do understand that the tide varies from day to day?   In some places by as much as several feet between the highest and lowest high tides over the course of a month.  With ambient meteorological conditions also affecting it.  And that changes in tides also vary from place to place.   With other factors, apart from just sea levels rises due rising temps/ice melt, also involved (like isostasy and changes in ocean currents).  And that even if, globally, sea levels are rising, in some places, the average high tides may nonetheless be falling?

So you need to show the actual, recorded, high tide, averaged over a year, for, say, a few hundred different locations around the world,  unless you want to be seen as just another ignorant, gullible, cherry-picker :tu:

Oh, yes of course, it is either this or that or something else, not that The Climate Emergency is BS, anything else but!

Already covered that tidel times are not relevent as well as the moons position, and l don't see any hurricanes about. Maybe it was a fleet of UFO's affecting the gravity well, or the vibe or...

Yeah, ignorant gullible, better than a fanatic with serious mental barriers against seeing the f....ing obvious!

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
10 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yes, thought as much, no evidence, only nervous laughter!

So post some evidence of your own.

10 hours ago, tmcom said:

Geesh, Dough cut back on the posts, l want the next rung as well, but l am not going to post by brains out to do it! And flimsy excuse, covers that.

Apparently you weren't paying attention when they covered tides in grade school and you haven't taken any physics couses since.  You are entitled to your own opinions, but you're trying to make up your own facts.

10 hours ago, tmcom said:

 inches, eventhough we can't really see any indication of it, in the above example. l guess that means it could also be the .08cm rise over the last 100 years, which we deniers believe in

Apparently I missed that.  900 references would take up a lot of space on UM and typing all that out is a big project.  Bet dollars to donuts you didn't actiually do it.

AND:  I noted that Gore got the Mt. Kilamenjaro glacier melt wrong - so his sources were wrong.  They nevertheless, supported climate change.

10 hours ago, tmcom said:

3 inches, eventhough we can't really see any indication of it, in the above example. l guess that means it could also be the .08cm rise over the last 100 years, which we deniers believe in.

 And we have seen it happening.  It has been measured; otherwise, we wouldn't know about it.  So how much is global sea level rising?  About 1.7mm/year for the 20th century, meaning 0.85m since 1950:

Nicholls, R. and A. Cazenave.  2010.  Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones.  Science.  328(5985) 1517-1520.  https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5985/1517  17 September 2019.

See the paragraph just below the heading:  What Are the Causes of Contemporary Sea-Level Rise?  1.7

Their source was Church, J. and N. White.  2006.  A twnetieth-century acceleration in global sea-level rise.  Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L01602 (2006).

 

There's a whole book on sea-level change:  It's written in Polish, though.  I don't know if there's an English translation.

Pirazzoli, P.  1997.  Sea-level changes:  the last 20,000 years.  Oceanic Literature Review.  Journal ISSN:  0967-0653

 

My previously-stated number for sea-level rise was 7mm/yr, which is about half of the actual rate for the second half of the 20th century.  My appologies.

 

Your 8cm per century is 80mm per century, or 0.8mm per year.  So your number was actually larger than mine.  We were both wrong.

 

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

Already posted the FiJi island AU data, but that goes in one ear and out the other, as does pretty much everything else.I

Projected sea-level rise for FIJI is 0.2 to 1m by 2100.  It's captital is particularly vulnerable as it is right at sea level.  The problem is storm surges which will get worse as sea level rises.

Nunn, P. and N. Mimura.  1997.  Vulnerability of South Pacific island nations to sea-level rise.  Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 24.

 

Measurements of sea-level change on the Great Barrier Reef have produced a drop of 20mm/yr coincident with the 8200BP Cold Period and a 30mm/yr rise since then.  This is an average that includes warming-related rise as well as natural rise since 8300 BP.

Lacombe, P., R. Carter, J. Dye, M. Gagan and D. Johnson.  1995.  New evidence for episodic post-glacial sea-level rise, central Great Barrier Reef, Australia.  Marine Geology.  127(1-4) 1-44.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025322795000598

 

Current rate of sea level rise for the open ocean is 1.5 to 3mm per year with thermal expansion accounting for about 1mm per year.  For Australia's coast, it is estimated to rise 27cm by 2050.

Walsh, K., H. Betts, J. Church, A. Pittock, K. McInnes, D. Jackett and T. McDougal.  2004.  Using sea level rise projections for urban planning in Australia.  Journal of Coastal Research, 20(2) 586-598.

 

For definitive information on sea level rise in the vicinity of Australia look up the Australian Institution of Engineers.  They have published numerous articles on Australian sea-level rise.

 

So, yes.  With such knowledgeable sources available, why should I pay any attention to you who can't even post a refernece to support your contentions.  Wishful thinking and speed boat races doesn't cut it.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
12 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yes, thought as much, no evidence, only nervous laughter!

When I click the :lol: I am laughing out loud.  You are hilarious.

Share this post


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

So, the high tide on two different days, 10 years apart, in one specific place, looks about the same, ergo global sea levels aren't rising? :lol:

The operative word is "about."

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The immediate problem is not so much sea level rise as it is the rise in storm surges.  Sea level rise is in addition to storm surge, making it that much worse.  Add to that the increasing height of 100-year floods.  The flood crest going down the river meets the surge wave coming up, multiplying their effects, creating new records higher than either could by itself.

In 1910 Suez had a 10.7 foot storm surge; it occurred at high tide, making a total of 13.7 feet above normal water levels for a city that thinks a 3.2-foot tide is big.

The all-time record was 44 feet in 1899 at Bathurst Bay, Australia by Cyclone Mahina.  Additional research suggests that most of this was wave run-up, not an actual storm surge.

Katrina produced a 28 foot surge in southern Mississippi and Camille (1969) produce one of 24.6 feet at Pass Christian.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

@Doug1029 i'm afraid you are wasting your time responding to people like tmcom, its pretty clear that he is not going to listen to anything that doesn't fit with his preconcieved ideas. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Doug1029 i'm afraid you are wasting your time responding to people like tmcom, its pretty clear that he is not going to listen to anything that doesn't fit with his preconcieved ideas. 

I agree.  But I'm responding for others, too.

 

Besides, I notice tmcom hasn't responded to my Arctic Ocean ice cover posts.  That's what deniers do when you one-up them - they disappear.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Doug1029 i'm afraid you are wasting your time responding to people like tmcom, its pretty clear that he is not going to listen to anything that doesn't fit with his preconcieved ideas. 

Preconceived ideas, you mean Facts.......or maybe you mean seeing the f...ing obvious, and having enough ...never mind.

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I agree.  But I'm responding for others, too.

Besides, I notice tmcom hasn't responded to my Arctic Ocean ice cover posts.  That's what deniers do when you one-up them - they disappear.

Doug

One up, lol, you and others cannot disprove the Long Beach ocean and high tide, videos, and adjacent data, then merrily go back to one of your fav, junk science sites, to cut and paste tons of dodgy numbers and a few iffy links and probably 10 minutes of writing, to prove to yourselves that your cult worship is not in vain.

I am one up, (or have overwhelmingly proven) so don't have to waste time disproving it here anymore, although since the cult is crumbling, the entertainment value is still worth digging for.

I am sure that if you showed that to others that they would try to show you, (yet again) that your sites has been changed, and there data has not. For me seeing no sea or tidel change over 9 years is more than  enough evidence.

If you can show me a video of Long Beach, California showing obvious sea level rise's, not tidel, over a reasonable time frame, without any hurricanes about, then l will take you more seriously.

Showing charts that where probably got at, won't cut it with me, but something obvious like footage in a TY video, that has a slim change of being faked has a lot more credibility, or numbers can be faked but man made or maybe natural shorelines a lot less so!

 

And l have been away because a climate change F....wit, from hell went on a bender then l made a few left handed jokes about this subject, (on another forum) and, (l don't want to get into the details, since this will be set in cement before long) will probably takes months or longer to get it back again!

So yeah, only concentrating on the entertainment value here, which l should be doing to stay on subject, so if you post on the other threads, l will take a look but here, it it is the same old, probably not.

Entertainment and recovering from a S****house week, are my main motivations at the moment!

:gun:

Edited by tmcom
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Preconceived ideas, you mean Facts.......or maybe you mean seeing the f...ing obvious, and having enough ...never mind.

One up, lol, you and others cannot disprove the Long Beach ocean and high tide, videos, and adjacent data, then merrily go back to one of your fav, junk science sites, to cut and paste tons of dodgy numbers and a few iffy links and probably 10 minutes of writing, to prove to yourselves that your cult worship is not in vain.

I am one up, (or have overwhelmingly proven) so don't have to waste time disproving it here anymore, although since the cult is crumbling, the entertainment value is still worth digging for.

I am sure that if you showed that to others that they would try to show you, (yet again) that your sites has been changed, and there data has not. For me seeing no sea or tidel change over 9 years is more than  enough evidence.

If you can show me a video of Long Beach, California showing obvious sea level rise's, not tidel, over a reasonable time frame, without any hurricanes about, then l will take you more seriously.

Showing charts that where probably got at, won't cut it with me, but something obvious like footage in a TY video, that has a slim change of being faked has a lot more credibility, or numbers can be faked but man made or maybe natural shorelines a lot less so!

 

And l have been away because a climate change F....wit, from hell went on a bender then l made a few left handed jokes about this subject, (on another forum) and, (l don't want to get into the details, since this will be set in cement before long) will probably takes months or longer to get it back again!

So yeah, only concentrating on the entertainment value here, which l should be doing to stay on subject, so if you post on the other threads, l will take a look but here, it it is the same old, probably not.

Entertainment and recovering from a S****house week, are my main motivations at the moment!

:gun:

 

If you have a correct idea about climate science, then there should be a dataset out there that supports your contention.  All you have to do to prove your ideas is to post that dataset and an analysis of it that supports your cause.  But all you posts are fairy tales.

The crazy stuff you are posting is mostly by people who made these statements 25 years ago, or are basing their opinions on 25-year-old data.  Much of what they're saying was debunked decades ago, but then it was replaced by sounder data and interpretations.  You need to get up-to-date.  These 20-year obsolete posts aren't cutting it.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

What irritates they the most about all the scaremongering is what it's doing to gullible kids.

PSYCHOLOGISTS WARN PARENTS, CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS AGAINST CAUSING 'ECO-ANXIETY' IN CHILDREN

Psychologists warned parents and guardians about being climate change alarmists, noting an increasing number of children who are being treated for "eco-anxiety."

Researchers at the University of Bath and members of the Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) in the United Kingdom say children are commonly being subjected to a barrage of concerns about the future of the planet and "environmental doom." Psychologists speaking with The Telegraph this week said a rising number of kids and young adults are being treated with psychiatric drugs in order to reduce the emotional stress and exhaustion caused by "eco-anxiety," or, a fervent fear that humans will go extinct as a result of their own pollution and damage to the environment.

But CPA members said they don't want the rising "eco-anxiety" social phenomenon in children to be classified as a mental illness because it is a "rational" fear, unlike the causes behind most standard anxiety issues.

cont..

https://www.newsweek.com/eco-anxiety-climate-change-parent-fear-discussion-children-global-warming-depression-effects-1459731

I thought about tmcom when I saw this list of some of the dire warnings we've had since the 70's. :lol:

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
25 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

If you have a correct idea about climate science, then there should be a dataset out there that supports your contention.  All you have to do to prove your ideas is to post that dataset and an analysis of it that supports your cause.  But all you posts are fairy tales.

The crazy stuff you are posting is mostly by people who made these statements 25 years ago, or are basing their opinions on 25-year-old data.  Much of what they're saying was debunked decades ago, but then it was replaced by sounder data and interpretations.  You need to get up-to-date.  These 20-year obsolete posts aren't cutting it.

Doug

Looks like l have to post this again!

1871 image and recent, or almost a 150 years of a part of the LA coastline, with no discernible change!

And tons of charts, (data sets) showing a small rise, but no rise since the 70's. This shows why my 9 year jet boat finals data doesn't show any rise!

And make sure you go to what Lost_shaman and Tony H, uses, if you want to check on this!

I would recommend dropping this, as my findings support Tony H, research for this area, (and NOAA data) or is pretty overwhelmingly on my side, and you are just embarrassing yourself.

Have a nice day!

B)PS we know Desertrat66, we are laughing at you as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
16 minutes ago, Michelle said:

What irritates they the most about all the scaremongering is what it's doing to gullible kids.

PSYCHOLOGISTS WARN PARENTS, CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS AGAINST CAUSING 'ECO-ANXIETY' IN CHILDREN

Psychologists warned parents and guardians about being climate change alarmists, noting an increasing number of children who are being treated for "eco-anxiety."

Researchers at the University of Bath and members of the Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) in the United Kingdom say children are commonly being subjected to a barrage of concerns about the future of the planet and "environmental doom." Psychologists speaking with The Telegraph this week said a rising number of kids and young adults are being treated with psychiatric drugs in order to reduce the emotional stress and exhaustion caused by "eco-anxiety," or, a fervent fear that humans will go extinct as a result of their own pollution and damage to the environment.

But CPA members said they don't want the rising "eco-anxiety" social phenomenon in children to be classified as a mental illness because it is a "rational" fear, unlike the causes behind most standard anxiety issues.

cont..

https://www.newsweek.com/eco-anxiety-climate-change-parent-fear-discussion-children-global-warming-depression-effects-1459731

I thought about tmcom when I saw this list of some of the dire warnings we've had since the 70's. :lol:

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

Thanks Michelle.

Yes, brainwashing chldren with this crap, mainly by adults with serious mental health issue's!

:(

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
49 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Looks like l have to post this again!

1871 image and recent, or almost a 150 years of a part of the LA coastline, with no discernible change!

And tons of charts, (data sets) showing a small rise, but no rise since the 70's. This shows why my 9 year jet boat finals data doesn't show any rise!

And make sure you go to what Lost_shaman and Tony H, uses, if you want to check on this!

I would recommend dropping this, as my findings support Tony H, research for this area, (and NOAA data) or is pretty overwhelmingly on my side, and you are just embarrassing yourself.

Have a nice day!

B)PS we know Desertrat66, we are laughing at you as well.

There was no rise in sea level before 1910.  so 40 years of your claim are meaningless anyway.  From 1910 to the mid-a960s sea level rise was very small, so detecting it would be difficult by any means.

What are your qualifications in climate research?  Please list them.

Sea level rise is not really my thing, anyway.  I am mostly concerned with the southern Great Plains.  I got into Arctic ice conditions on the hypothesis that Arctic ice cover might be correlated with increasing moisture in Oklahoma.  As yet, I have not been able to check this.  I HAVE determined a 1.12-point increase in the Palmer Drought Severity Index since 1900.  The PDSI is pretty good with long-term drought, but since about 1960 we have had mostly short-term droughts.  This needs to be cross-checked using the Z-Index.  I still havce a long way to go with this, but I am working on a publishable paper on climate change right now.  So what are you doing?

Doug

Share this post


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

What irritates they the most about all the scaremongering is what it's doing to gullible kids.

PSYCHOLOGISTS WARN PARENTS, CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS AGAINST CAUSING 'ECO-ANXIETY' IN CHILDREN

Psychologists warned parents and guardians about being climate change alarmists, noting an increasing number of children who are being treated for "eco-anxiety."

Researchers at the University of Bath and members of the Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) in the United Kingdom say children are commonly being subjected to a barrage of concerns about the future of the planet and "environmental doom." Psychologists speaking with The Telegraph this week said a rising number of kids and young adults are being treated with psychiatric drugs in order to reduce the emotional stress and exhaustion caused by "eco-anxiety," or, a fervent fear that humans will go extinct as a result of their own pollution and damage to the environment.

But CPA members said they don't want the rising "eco-anxiety" social phenomenon in children to be classified as a mental illness because it is a "rational" fear, unlike the causes behind most standard anxiety issues.

cont..

https://www.newsweek.com/eco-anxiety-climate-change-parent-fear-discussion-children-global-warming-depression-effects-1459731

I thought about tmcom when I saw this list of some of the dire warnings we've had since the 70's. :lol:

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

It is time to simply start fixing the problem, one item at a time.  We can argue about global warming until we turn blue without getting a resolution, but if we propose a coffer dam to protect Staten Island from storms like Sandy, most people would agree - at least, those who own homes on Staten Island.

We can argue about climate change, but if we propose replacing coal plants with wind turbines simply because wind turbines don't poison you, most people would agree that's a good thing.

And if we recommend using passive solar heat because it's cheaper than coal, gas or electricty, most people would agree.

We can't agree on whether global warming is happening, but we can agree on mitigating it.

Lets get to work.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
7 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

We can't agree on whether global warming is happening, but we can agree on mitigating it.

It is debatable on how to mitigate it, but I do my best to minimize my footprint. If only everyone did their part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

There was no rise in sea level before 1910.  so 40 years of your claim are meaningless anyway.  From 1910 to the mid-a960s sea level rise was very small, so detecting it would be difficult by any means.

What are your qualifications in climate research?  Please list them.

Sea level rise is not really my thing, anyway.  I am mostly concerned with the southern Great Plains.  I got into Arctic ice conditions on the hypothesis that Arctic ice cover might be correlated with increasing moisture in Oklahoma.  As yet, I have not been able to check this.  I HAVE determined a 1.12-point increase in the Palmer Drought Severity Index since 1900.  The PDSI is pretty good with long-term drought, but since about 1960 we have had mostly short-term droughts.  This needs to be cross-checked using the Z-Index.  I still havce a long way to go with this, but I am working on a publishable paper on climate change right now.  So what are you doing?

Doug

Qualifications, almost 10 years experience with Photoshop, and being able to see by using those skills that there is no change.

And l will take your word on the pre, 1960's rises.

But after that, l believe that the "nail in the coffin covers it".

B)

Share this post


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

It is debatable on how to mitigate it, but I do my best to minimize my footprint. If only everyone did their part.

First Objective:  quit adding pollution to the air.  This, specifically, includes CO2.

     Wind turbines are already in operation.  We haven't found the most-efficient way of using them yet, but we're learning fast.

     Hydro is maxed out.

     Solar is just coming on line.  Perovskites hold great promise.

     Cold solar is still experimental, but holds great promise.

     Convert heating to electricty.  Convert transportation to electricity.

 

Second Objective:  reduce CO2 levels to the low 300 ppm.

    This will require rmoving CO2 from the air and sequestering it underground or in leaves, twigs, litter, roots, etc.  Could require improved land management.

     Lots more research needed in this area.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


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

Qualifications, almost 10 years experience with Photoshop, and being able to see by using those skills that there is no change.

And l will take your word on the pre, 1960's rises.

But after that, l believe that the "nail in the coffin covers it".

B)

You are vastly deficient in science knowledge and training.  That shows up in nearly every one of your posts.

Doug

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Well, Greta sounds enthusiastic, and motivated, or more likely just going through the motions, (she was on a yaught with no toilet and a bucket so) or she is less than 100% sure and has to go through with it, to keep her green stooge guardians happy.

But she will probably end up rich, and have visited a few celebrates, sorry experts!

I guess only adults need the bullet or metal pole?

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
13 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

You are vastly deficient in science knowledge and training.  That shows up in nearly every one of your posts.

Doug

Except the one showing no sea level rise on Long Beach, showing that hysteria around sea level rise, melting and hottest recent years are crap.

I guess l need to be psychotically dependent on junk science and the end is nigh, with an abnormal fixation so my ego has something to get off of, to believe in it?

:gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.