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
2 minutes ago, tmcom said:

The dodgy CSIRO chart up the top, gives the supposed tidal ranges increasing since 1880, the rest of most search results.

But something has to melt, (world temp's have to go up) first, if the chart at the top of this thread, has any credibility.

B)

The question is about temperatures, not tides, and you haven't posted a source.  Try again.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 10/1/2019 at 9:12 AM, Doug1o29 said:

Completed that extended abstract, but the project just keeps growing.  Now they want me to write a proposal to turn it into a seven-year project.  Won't get funded before next summer, though, so I'll still be working on Oklahoma climate change for a few more months, even if this is successful.  Anyway, the humidity data files will be delayed a couple more days.

Doug

The proposal got changed to a white paper.  So I'm writing a white paper (with a tint of Forest Service green).  Probably be working on it for the rest of the week.  Doing some field work next week, so I won't be on line.  Probably get back to the climate study in about two weeks.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 10/3/2019 at 10:30 AM, Doug1o29 said:

The proposal got changed to a white paper.  So I'm writing a white paper (with a tint of Forest Service green).  Probably be working on it for the rest of the week.  Doing some field work next week, so I won't be on line.  Probably get back to the climate study in about two weeks.

Doug

Got the Title page, Abtsract and Intro done.  Nicely into the Literature Review.  That's where I'll end the week.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2008/0723/global-warming-could-lead-to-more-kittens

Global warming causes more kittens to appear, knew it the Dogs and Cats living together, prophesy is true! :lol:

PS the drought we are having in far regions of Victoria, might be to blame also, unless the ABC is reporting it.

B) having those furry little things scurrying about,....shudder to think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

I hate, (not really) to dig in the heels, but since l have had to put up with years of the faithful, saying how sea levels are rising and world temp's are increasing, and every year is the hottest, and every month is also apparently, here is some more solid evidence that the Climate Emergency, is on par with Flat Earth Emergency!

dQ4vsAF.jpg

Sydney Opera House, completed 1973, and present day, with NO, sea level rise in almost 50 years!

The good thing about this comparison is it is easy to match the retaining wall, and black line on both images, since they remain the same over time.

So according to NASA and the IPCC, fairytale chart, there should be a 3cm rise every 10 years, or we should be seeing a 15cm rise for this comparison, not to mention the previous Sydney fort, which l will repost, (easy to hammer the idiots that keep bleating about impending doom).

Ji4unps.jpg

Top image is from, 1859, and superimposed color, 2006, (Google images).

With no noticeable change in low ocean levels, or high tidal marks, for the last almost 150 years!

:lol:

Yes, years of being called names, jokingly bad evidence, human stupidity on a scale l wouldn't believe unless l saw it, and apparently solid evidence against the cult also produces dementia, (the goldfish syndrome, or forgets within 5 minutes) and in the end since l, (and others) can discern evidence from wishful thinking, are proven right in the end,....unbelievable!

 

Which probably means that l am also right about others things, but that is off topic. :P

 

Individuals that can't handle that this is a conspiracy, (an actual real one) or that they have been fools for the last 10 or so years, or this materbatergenic climate emergency is really a flat earth one, only with more ribbons, to divert their eye from the BS, or their way of life around this crap, is crumbing before their very eyes, is too much for some.

Especially some that have fallen for this.

Ok, l will put the chainsaw away, (waited a very long time, for solid enough evidence to say that).

 

I expect climate marches to turn ugly, with burning cars, and such taking place, since we are not listening, and the world will end, blah, blah, never mind a 12 year old doing the research l did above, (1.30 hours tops) realizing it is nonsense, and getting on with their lives!

But their should be some laughs as well, (hopefully).

Yes, human stupidity is settled or crystal clear!

:nw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
Quote

 

"We're shifting the narrative about the urgency of climate change and for the first time, conveying that into the lounge rooms of Australia. It feels like this week we have become a household name, and this is just the beginning."

During the protests, frustrated Melburnians appeared to be mixed in their support for the protesters. However, an Age reader's poll revealed 85 per cent supported the Extinction Rebellion protests.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/we-are-overexposed-climate-activists-strip-march-through-city-streets-20191012-p5301f.html

We are shifting the narrative, lol, they all sound so intelligent, but are complete idiots. Become a household name all right, we think that they are fools, with not enough brain power to do a simple online comparison search to see if it is true.

 

85%, lol, this is from The Age, or as left wing as you will get, the Herald Sun, would and has painted the opposite, picture, of well meaning, but fanatical nutcases.

:rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

This is Sky news, AU, not the leftist ABC,....which explains the bury their heads in the sand remark!

There is a real Flat Earth Climate Emergency!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

So basically distroy the western world, use dodgy, intermittent power, and if the poor die in freezing homes, tough, we have to save the planet, since world temp's are rising, (eventhough they are not, this is about as dumb as it gets.

They go gung ho, and never research it themselves, just lap up the rubbish and get off of it, (is all l can see, apart from noses in troughs).

If AU has 100% renewables as these idiots want, then on a hot overcast day, with little or no wind, our trains would stop, and the city's power would go out, so our roads to Melbourne would be so jammed that, half would lose their jobs, and thanks to our moron premier banning cars, have no where to park, so would have to park illegally, since a fine is better than being unemployed, and the list of crap continues, basically distroy our economy, for a theory based on junk data sets, when a simple comparision of before after images would prove 100% that this is BS!

<_<

Share this post


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

So basically distroy the western world, use dodgy, intermittent power, and if the poor die in freezing homes, tough, we have to save the planet, since world temp's are rising, (eventhough they are not, this is about as dumb as it gets.

They go gung ho, and never research it themselves, just lap up the rubbish and get off of it, (is all l can see, apart from noses in troughs).

If AU has 100% renewables as these idiots want, then on a hot overcast day, with little or no wind, our trains would stop, and the city's power would go out, so our roads to Melbourne would be so jammed that, half would lose their jobs, and thanks to our moron premier banning cars, have no where to park, so would have to park illegally, since a fine is better than being unemployed, and the list of crap continues, basically distroy our economy, for a theory based on junk data sets, when a simple comparision of before after images would prove 100% that this is BS!

<_<

The wind blows 90% of the time in Oklahoma.  We have 31 wind farms.  There's a 3.8% chance at any point in time that any given wind farm will be off line due to a lack of wind and a 0.00266% chance of all 31 being off line.  So once every 103 years we can expect to be without power for a few minutes.

We have power outages due to lines being down or transformers having blown up due to a squirrel getting into them, about twice a year.  Our coal-fired stations are getting older and the risk of catastrophic failure is high - about triple the risk of all 31 wind farms being down at the same time.  By your line of reasoning, we should immediately switch to wind because it is more relaible.

And just in case the exisitng wind farms aren't reliable enough, we have two more under construction and additional turbines going in at most of them.

 

The fallacy in your reasoning is that if one wind turbine fails, they ALL fail.  This is patently untrue.  You are entitled to your opiniong, but you're trying to make up your own facts.

 

AND BTW:  In most of Australia (except New South Wales) the wind blows about 90% of the time.  All you have to do is build 31 wind farms of 100 turbines or more and you will have a source of electricty as reliable as Oklahoma's.  So quit whining and go to work.

Doug

Share this post


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

The wind blows 90% of the time in Oklahoma.  We have 31 wind farms.  There's a 3.8% chance at any point in time that any given wind farm will be off line due to a lack of wind and a 0.00266% chance of all 31 being off line.  So once every 103 years we can expect to be without power for a few minutes.

We have power outages due to lines being down or transformers having blown up due to a squirrel getting into them, about twice a year.  Our coal-fired stations are getting older and the risk of catastrophic failure is high - about triple the risk of all 31 wind farms being down at the same time.  By your line of reasoning, we should immediately switch to wind because it is more relaible.

And just in case the exisitng wind farms aren't reliable enough, we have two more under construction and additional turbines going in at most of them.

The fallacy in your reasoning is that if one wind turbine fails, they ALL fail.  This is patently untrue.  You are entitled to your opiniong, but you're trying to make up your own facts.

AND BTW:  In most of Australia (except New South Wales) the wind blows about 90% of the time.  All you have to do is build 31 wind farms of 100 turbines or more and you will have a source of electricty as reliable as Oklahoma's.  So quit whining and go to work.

Doug

Gee, l thought that you got a strong dose of reality and left in shame, like the others seem to have done?

90% of the time, l don't know where you get that crap from, but it is crap, there are several times a year where typically two or more states have no wind at all for 3 days to a week, (l live in one of them so l know) and according to you we need to build more, lol, typical wind/solar will magically fix all our problems mentality.

I can't say anything about your state, but if l don't hear from you l will understand.

SA has almost 50% renewables, and has constant blackouts, the highest prices in our country, since this crap does not reduce prices, (one of the highest worldwide) has dim street lights, (like Vic does) and almost killed someone in surgery, last time they had a large scale one.

There isn't any climate emergency, as sea levels show, and l am all for cleaning our mess up, but ****ing up our country, to do it, no.

B)PS l won't quit whining, and l have got to work, in telling as many influential people as l can about the ocean level, Sydney landmarks comparison, so they will publish in their papers or whatever, and show the demented the obvious.

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


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

Gee, l thought that you got a strong dose of reality and left in shame, like the others seem to have done?

90% of the time, l don't know where you get that crap from, but it is crap, there are several times a year where typically two or more states have no wind at all for 3 days to a week, (l live in one of them so l know) and according to you we need to build more, lol, typical wind/solar will magically fix all our problems mentality.

I can't say anything about your state, but if l don't hear from you l will understand.

SA has almost 50% renewables, and has constant blackouts, the highest prices in our country, since this crap does not reduce prices, (one of the highest worldwide) has dim street lights, (like Vic does) and almost killed someone in surgery, last time they had a large scale one.

There isn't any climate emergency, as sea levels show, and l am all for cleaning our mess up, but ****ing up our country, to do it, no.

B)

I was in Northern Michigan, aka "God's Country."  I hit the peak of the fall color change.  Maybe you missed my pre-trip post.

The 90% figure is from the Australian Wind Report.  Actually it said that at any given point, the wind did not blow 10% of the time (13% for NSW).  That's comparable to Oklahoma.  Three days to a week:  that's 1% to 2% of the year.  You must live in a windy spot.  Typically, one would expect turbines to be down due to a lack of wind over a month per year.

50% renewables and you have constant blackouts.  So you obviously don't have enough genereating capacity.  What's the cure for too little generating capacity?  Build more capacity.  If I were you, I'd get off my ass and put in some more windmills.  Solar might work, but it's only available during the day.  Here's how you solve that problem:

You have at least two hydro-electric dams.  Shut them down during the day and use only wind/solar.  Use them only at night when you don't have enough wind.

The problem isn't so much what your primary generating capacity is.  You will always be using a mix of primary generators.  Wind is the cheapest source of power, so you use it first.  If you can't get enough wind, you use solar and if that's not enough you use hydro.  And if that's not enough, you use gas; then oil; then coal.  This is all accomplished by throwing a few switches in the control room.  When you have finally installed the needed wind capacity you can start removing coal plants.  But I wouldn't do that until I had the wind turbines on line.

You're trying to solve the wrong problem.  The problem is a shortage of generating capacity, not the source of power.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


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

and almost killed someone in surgery, last time they had a large scale one.

Our hospitals have backup generators.  Don't yours?

Doug

Share this post


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

50% renewables and you have constant blackouts.  So you obviously don't have enough genereating capacity.  What's the cure for too little generating capacity?  Build more capacity.  If I were you, I'd get off my ass and put in some more windmills.  Solar might work, but it's only available during the day.  Here's how you solve that problem:

No, we need SA to build a new coal fired power station that generates 24/7, not 24/7 when it can. Heavy industry cannot operate in states with this mentality, and Vic has already lost Cola Cola, and others since our moron keeps closing ours down, power prices also increase substiantially, and so forth, but it is pretty obvious l am wasting my breath.

Or if you dance around a wind turbine watch out for the dead eagles.

19 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Our hospitals have backup generators.  Don't yours?

Doug

Yes, but they can fail!

We consider SA to be a failed experiment, and shake our heads when our premier idiot wants to do the same. But we are building a dam and extending another in NSW, for drought relief in NSW and Vic, since our premier won't touch them, so at least the liberals are not nuts.

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


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

No, we need SA to build a new coal fired power station that generates 24/7, not 24/7 when it can. Heavy industry cannot operate in states with this mentality, and Vic has already lost Cola Cola, and others since our moron keeps closing ours down, power prices also increase substiantially, and so forth, but it is pretty obvious l am wasting my breath.

The wind is always blowing somewhere.  The trick is to have enough wind farms, scattered far enough apart (>350km) that there are always several of them generating power.

Even when a majority of its rotors are idle, most wind farms can still generate.

 

You'd better convince your "moron" not to take coal stations off line before the replacement capacity has been built.  His heart is in the right place, but I don't know where his head is.

 

So your backup generators are not as reliable as your unreliable power companies?  I'd buy some different generators.

 

I don't know about the power dam situation in Australia.  I'd be inclined to build some if there were good sites available.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 10/2/2019 at 7:19 AM, tmcom said:

That nice, and here is a backup!

Ji4unps.jpg

Top image is from, 1859, and superimposed color, 2006, (Google images).

With no noticable change in low ocean levels, or high tidel marks, for the last almost 150 years!

This year same thing, no change!

According to the doomsters charts we should be seeing a steady rise in ocean levels, since 1880, or at least a breakaway rise in the last few years, but nada.

Yeah, the science is settled all right!

:sleepy:

 

Let's start with your second image.  Check the left side of the tower.  The top of the color image does not line up with the b&w image.  That's an error of several inches.

Next, the third image.  The b&W and color images are shot from different directions, distorting the results.  Also, there seems to be a height discrepancy of about a foot between the two images.

I note that the color images are shot from a lower vantage point than the b&w images, another source of distortion.

The waterline seems to be about the same in all images, indicating that the photographs were roughly synced with the tide.  There is nothing to indicate the exact time, so that the height of the tide can be factored in.

In short, you have created a nice photographic montage that proves nothing at all.

Doug

P.S.:  when the Sydney Opera House was built, mean sea level was not quitet six inches lower than current.  Your photography isn't good enough to tell the difference AND once agaqin, there is nothing to indicate the level of the tide at the moment the shots were taken.  Once again, you have proven nothing.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


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

In short, you have created a nice photographic montage that proves nothing at all.

 

Proves nothing at all, lol, un.........believable, but not unexpected.

The fort image was taken most likely on a sailing ship in 1859, and the 2006 on a small vessel, so elevations are slightly off, as it perspective, (windows are not a perfect match) but sea levels are very clearly visible, as is high tidel marks, (dark areas) showing no change over 150 years, Opera house, 50 years and no change, Long Beach 10 years and no change, might be a pattern here????

Sorry Doug, but this proves or shows that the 1880, rising sea level charts are BS, and world temps, constantly rising are BS, and recent year or year being the hottest is BS, l can go on. Or it shows that there is no climate emergency at all.

And you do need to seek out professional help, that is also obvious!

Any sane human being, will look at that, compare similar areas, and see no change at all, and realize that they where wrong!

B)

Share this post


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

Proves nothing at all, lol, un.........believable, but not unexpected.

The fort image was taken most likely on a sailing ship in 1859, and the 2006 on a small vessel, so elevations are slightly off, as it perspective, (windows are not a perfect match) but sea levels are very clearly visible, as is high tidel marks, (dark areas) showing no change over 150 years, Opera house, 50 years and no change, Long Beach 10 years and no change, might be a pattern here????

Sorry Doug, but this proves or shows that the 1880, rising sea level charts are BS, and world temps, constantly rising are BS, and recent year or year being the hottest is BS, l can go on. Or it shows that there is no climate emergency at all.

And you do need to seek out professional help, that is also obvious!

Any sane human being, will look at that, compare similar areas, and see no change at all, and realize that they where wrong!

B)

What makes you think I would accept a clumsily-done photo montage as evidence when I have access to sea-level and river gauging data?  You're going to have to put up some data before I find your BS worth looking into.  So far, you've got a pretty bad track record.

As I have noted before, temps do not go up in a straight line, or constantly-rising curve.  They go by fits and starts.  We are now almost three years past the all-time high.  Maybe we'll top it again next year, but we won't this year.

While sea levels conform to a logarithmic curve a lot better than temps, they still are not a smooth curve.  They, too, are not "comstantly rising."  Your rants are simply not factual.

Doug

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

What makes you think I would accept a clumsily-done photo montage as evidence when I have access to sea-level and river gauging data?

Because those pictures prove that every tidal gauge around the world has been faulty for at least the past 150 years, along with all satellite and GPS measurements,  all anecdotal evidence to false, and that those who record the data are all part of the grand conspiracy (which currently includes over 110% of the world's population)  started by Thatcher and Gore using their time machine, in order to, um, do summat or other  :D     Obvious innit!

Next you'll be claiming the Earth orbits the Sun, when it can clearly be seen, every day, that the opposite is true.  I can provide video which proves it: the Sun moves relative to the Earth! 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
6 minutes ago, Essan said:

Because those pictures prove that every tidal gauge around the world has been faulty for at least the past 150 years, along with all satellite and GPS measurements,  all anecdotal evidence to false, and that those who record the data are all part of the grand conspiracy (which currently includes over 110% of the world's population)  started by Thatcher and Gore using their time machine, in order to, um, do summat or other  :D     Obvious innit!

Next you'll be claiming the Earth orbits the Sun, when it can clearly be seen, every day, that the opposite is true.  I can provide video which proves it: the Sun moves relative to the Earth! 

Consider the grand conspiracy:  In Oklahoma the Army kept the weather records from July 1824 (Ft. Towson) to November 1904 (Ft. Supply) - so the Army Surgeon's Office and the Signal Corps were in on it.  (The history books say Ft. Supply closed in September 1904, but there are weather sheets for October and November.).  The Army did not keep records of who the observers were or how long they served at each post.  Starting in 1880, the US Weather Bureau started setting up civilian weather stations.  By 1892 they had 20 stations (run by 20 people) on the list, but only twelve turning in reports.  Gradually the number increased until today there are 205 volunteer-run stations and a bunch of automated ones.  So that's a conspiracy of about 3000 people over 195 years.  How do you get people to turn in false reports just to trick folks 195 years in the future into thinking there's a climate shift?  How do you get all those 205 stations to agree on how much temps/precip/etc. have changed?  How do you get the "fake" volunteer-run stations to agree with the automated ones?  How do you get weather logs to agree with tree ring data?  I don't know, either, but the conspiracy theorists say they did it.

Doug

P.S.:  Personally, I thin the post doctor at Ft. Supply, being the only doctor in hundreds of miles, stayed on for a couple months and kept the weather station going.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Looks like NASA isn't buying this BS anymore either!

But nutjobs can dismiss anything they want! Apparently!

:gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
13 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Looks like NASA isn't buying this BS anymore either!

But nutjobs can dismiss anything they want! Apparently!

:gun:

I have to agree that the hysteria is getting a bit out of hand.

But that doesn't change the facts:  global warming is happening.  It is already creating problems and there's worse to come.  The problem needs to be solved.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

I guess that the 150 years of dodgy sea level gauges need to be chucked out, and dodgy satellite data, that used to be legit, before NASA got at the datasets, (apart from the 25 scientists above)?

Fort Denisen, Sydney Harbour 1859 - 2006, Google images.

dRLpXKC.jpg

This has been adjusted, so elevations are exact, and no sea level rise over 150 years, (well 146), lol.

E4eNzhT.jpg

This is the Unicorn, BS that the IPCC, and most of NASA are still pushing, with fervent, idiots ready to lap it all up.

According to this we should be seeing at least a 45cm increase in ocean levels, with the above comparison but nothing?

I guess that means it is crystal clear, the science is settled, that the impending doom is for flat-Earth mentality seekers.

QTW3wiy.jpg

Quote

Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.

https://www.apnews.com/7fd1d533c53d46629c842d201145ab73

This is the first BS site l found, sea levels are rising at an blah, blah, blah, rate, that is true, 150 years of sea levels going from zero to a mind numbing ...um....zero, we all need to buy inflatable boats, and run from our coastlines in terror, l find it amazing that grown adults keep buying this crap, but Flat-earthers are stubborn, and insane, so l guess that explains it.

:lol:

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


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

l find it amazing that grown adults keep buying this crap, but Flat-earthers are stubborn, and insane, so l guess that explains it.

:lol:

You said it ;)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

One thing we don't seem to be considering is the possibility that there has been little change in sea levels in Sydney Harbor, a protected area.  The earth is not a sphere - close, but no cigar.  Its actual shape is a geoid.  It is more-or-less an oval in each of three dimensions.  Gravity varies considerably from place to place.  The world's oceans vary in height by as much as 60 feet.  So it is possible that the rising water went somewhere else.  But where?  We need gauging records for Sydney Harbor that we can compare to the rest of the world.  How about it, tmcom?  How about posting gauging records from Sydney Harbor so we can check whether there really is a difference?

The thing about science is that results have to be repeatable.  If your pictures actually prove anything other than that you can gin up something, then there should be gauge records that show it.  So lets repeat your experiment using a different data source and see if it holds up.  Might even be a paper in it.

Doug

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.