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

tmcom
2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

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

Post #561 has the video, showing the data sets, and no l am not digging for it, all oceans are interconnected so what l have shown is more than enough, gravity wells, jupiter or unicorn numbers are not going to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Been watching this, or trying to, pffft. Brainwashing a Greta mark two, sharing a car, is good, when it sucks, and sharing solar panels in India is also good, well l will partially agree with that, it is better than nothing, or what we almost have, reliable power, but get enough overcast days, and the whole, whispy idea, is crap.

Then closeups of children that either have no idea or are reading it from a script, or are selling windows 10, and the main father figure, using his inefficient fireplace or fridge to show, he has no idea about CO2?

Then showing fields of solar and wind, (with a few angels) saying we can fix this, yes we can fix this with conventional cleaner options, and waiting it out til fusion or magnetic vortex, becomes mainstream.

I will watch the rest for morbid curiosity, and the utter stupidity of it, the funniest being CO2, increases natural disasters, lack of it does,..........!

:lol:

Share this post


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

Post #561 has the video, showing the data sets, and no l am not digging for it, all oceans are interconnected so what l have shown is more than enough, gravity wells, jupiter or unicorn numbers are not going to change that.

So you have no evidence to support your contention.  That, by itself, isn't a big problem; all it does is destroy your hypothesis.  But if it is to be accepted as valid, it must be verifiable.

Your problem seems to be that you don't know where to find the data, or even if it exists.  I'll see what I can do.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Then showing fields of solar and wind, (with a few angels) saying we can fix this, yes we can fix this with conventional cleaner options, and waiting it out til fusion or magnetic vortex, becomes mainstream.

I will watch the rest for morbid curiosity, and the utter stupidity of it, the funniest being CO2, increases natural disasters, lack of it does,..........!

:lol:

We can fix the problem and we are.  The US already has well over 60,000 wind turbines, generating about 7% of our power.  Solar, mostly photovoltaics, generates another 1.66%.  Because solar varies greatly, from small roof-top panels to major photo-fields, the number of installations is both hard to determine and doesn't mean much when you finally get the number.  Total installed capacity means more - it is currently about 14.762 Mw.

Hydro adds another 6.1%, making the total US renewable energy capacity about 14.76% of our current power usage.  That's pretty close to one sixth of US power.  At the current rate of growth, we should reach 20% in a little under three years.  By 2030 (AOC's deadline), we could reach 60% without even increasing our annual investment in renewables.

The US is third in the world in air pollution, behind China and the former republics of the Soviet Union.  We are second to China in wind farms.  And we are world leaders in solar.

We can currently generate 2.5% of our power supply from pumped storage.  This does nothing to increase the power supply, but it does allow better diurnal balancing of the power load.

 

 

Fusion has been twenty years in the future since at least 1946 when a patent was issued for a fusion reactor.  So far, fusion reactions haven't lasted longer than a split-second.  We need continuous generation to use them as a power source.  Believe (and use) fusion when you see it.  In the meantime, prepare to live without it.

 

There are two proposed vortex engines.  One is just another windmill, but taking advantage of rising warm air from a warm surface, rather than winds parallel to the ground.  Small amounts of power have been generated and, in principle, this could be scaled up.  BUT:  nobody has been able to do it.

The other type of vortex engine is a magnetic vortex which uses the earth's magnetic field to generate a small current.  Nothing moves.   The earth's magnetic field passing through a veritical iron shaft generates the current in small amounts.  Again, this will work in principle, but we don't have even one industrial-scale working model.  Once again, use it if and when it comes on line, but be prepared for the possibility that it will never come on line.

 

Both wind and solar are here NOW.  Wind has proven it can compete with fossil fuels, even with gas, and provide power as reliably as any fossil fuel plant.  Solar seems poised to do the same thing.  We can't afford to wait for pie-in-the-sky technologies which may never arrive.  Use them when we get them, but prepare for the eventuality that they won't arrive at all.

Doug

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/91

 

 

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Post #561 has the video, showing the data sets, and no l am not digging for it, all oceans are interconnected so what l have shown is more than enough, gravity wells, jupiter or unicorn numbers are not going to change that.

 

54 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

So you have no evidence to support your contention.  That, by itself, isn't a big problem; all it does is destroy your hypothesis.  But if it is to be accepted as valid, it must be verifiable.

Your problem seems to be that you don't know where to find the data, or even if it exists.  I'll see what I can do.

Doug

 

That was too easy.  I found it on the first try:  https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140

Sydney' Harbor's mean annual rate of sea level increase is 0.65mm/yr. or about 0.21 feet per century since 1886.  The world average is currently about five times that great, about 1 foot per century.

I don't think you did it deliberately, but you have chosen a place with a much lower-than-average rate of change to try to prove your contention that there is no sea level rise.  Unfortunately, you didn't choose the right place:  Sydney DOES show sea level rise - just not very much of it.

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
9 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

So you have no evidence to support your contention.  That, by itself, isn't a big problem; all it does is destroy your hypothesis.  But if it is to be accepted as valid, it must be verifiable.

Your problem seems to be that you don't know where to find the data, or even if it exists.  I'll see what I can do.

Doug

No, evidence, seeing no sea level change over 10 to 150 years is pretty solid evidence, (including the 1880 California coast one) everything else is secondry. Or a 1859 image from our museums image archives, showing the fort in Sydney harbour, has a very slim chance of being fake, (it will be published also) but datasets or the charts can be easily faked, although newspaper articles show that up.

9 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

There are two proposed vortex engines.  One is just another windmill, but taking advantage of rising warm air from a warm surface, rather than winds parallel to the ground.  Small amounts of power have been generated and, in principle, this could be scaled up.  BUT:  nobody has been able to do it.

The other type of vortex engine is a magnetic vortex which uses the earth's magnetic field to generate a small current.  Nothing moves.   The earth's magnetic field passing through a veritical iron shaft generates the current in small amounts.  Again, this will work in principle, but we don't have even one industrial-scale working model.  Once again, use it if and when it comes on line, but be prepared for the possibility that it will never come on line.

Both wind and solar are here NOW.  Wind has proven it can compete with fossil fuels, even with gas, and provide power as reliably as any fossil fuel plant.  Solar seems poised to do the same thing.  We can't afford to wait for pie-in-the-sky technologies which may never arrive.  Use them when we get them, but prepare for the eventuality that they won't arrive at all.

Doug

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/91

Magnetic vortex systems will come out when gov, stop burying them. But the atmospheric one, already created that as a hobby, and it works, sure you need a paddock of the things to power a house forever, although calibrated vacuum tubes with cadmium could power a house with one antenna, as far as l know, lol..

8 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

hat was too easy.  I found it on the first try:  https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140

Sydney' Harbor's mean annual rate of sea level increase is 0.65mm/yr. or about 0.21 feet per century since 1886.  The world average is currently about five times that great, about 1 foot per century.

I don't think you did it deliberately, but you have chosen a place with a much lower-than-average rate of change to try to prove your contention that there is no sea level rise.  Unfortunately, you didn't choose the right place:  Sydney DOES show sea level rise - just not very much of it.

Doug

I can't believe you said that, oh wait,....so Sydney harbour shows no rise, and apparently Hawaii's retaining wall and Californias' coastline doenst either.

We will end it here, l still have to get through the rest of 2040, and that is enough.

PS l thought that a new Doug signed up, for a while but realized you got a hair cut.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
10 hours ago, tmcom said:

Magnetic vortex systems will come out when gov, stop burying them. But the atmospheric one, already created that as a hobby, and it works, sure you need a paddock of the things to power a house forever, although calibrated vacuum tubes with cadmium could power a house with one antenna, as far as l know, lol..

Like I said, use it if and when it gets here, but prepare for the possibility that it won't.

 

10 hours ago, tmcom said:

I can't believe you said that, oh wait,....so Sydney harbour shows no rise, and apparently Hawaii's retaining wall and Californias' coastline doenst either.

You didn't read the post.  It says that sea levels in Sydney Harbor rose at an average rate of 0.65mm/yr since 1886.  I'll see what I can find on Hawaii and California.

 

Hawaii was too easy, too.  Found one article on the first try:  http://pgf.soest.hawaii.edu/Publications/caccamise_grl_05.pdf

Figure 1:  1.8mm/yr sea level rise at Honolulu since 1946.  2.5mm/yr. at Hilo since 1975.

Honolulu is three times the rate at Sydney Harbor.  Hilo is four times greater.

 

Did some checking on California.  I never knew it, but sea level rise is greater in the south end of San Francisco Bay (c. 4mm/yr) than in the north end (c. 2mm/yr).  The average for the California coast outside of SF Bay is about 4mm/yr.  That's about six times the rate in Sydney Harbor.

The big problem presented by sea level rise is that of the 100-year flood.  In California, that's about three feet above mean sea level.  Elsewhere, it can vary by tens of feet.  Don't know what it is for Sydney.

Should we panic over rising sea levels?  No.  My house might make it to 100 years old.  I think it already saw the worst possible flood, which cane up to the front door, but didn't get inside.  By the same token, if your house is safe from 100-year floods now, it will probably be safe from them for a few more decades.  Even if it's not, your house probably won't be around for the second 100-year flood, anyway.  The problem:  how often can we get flooded out before it is no longer cost-effective to rebuild?

 

We have mentioned tides as something that affects sea level.  Also, there's temperature:  warm water is less dense than cold water, so sea levels are higher when the water is warm.  As this varies with the season, it is important to correct for time-of-year.  There's also salinity:  sea water is less dense when there's a lot of fresh  water coming in; thus, sea levels are higher.  Also, it makes a difference whether you record water temp in a wooden bucket or a metal one.  The water in the bucket tends to take on the temperature of the air rather quickly.  There's an armload of corrections you haven't made.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
10 hours ago, tmcom said:

No, evidence,

Circular reasoning:  "I can;t find any evidence of change because there isn't any change.  There isn't any change, so I can't find evidence of any."  You haven't looked.

Doug

Share this post


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

Circular reasoning:  "I can;t find any evidence of change because there isn't any change.  There isn't any change, so I can't find evidence of any."  You haven't looked.

Doug

Well, l watched the video again, and he said, that levels have gone up and down since, 1914, with a 15cm variance, and are now 6cm lower than it was in 1914, so going by datasets we are propably in an mini ice age, (but as the guy said, planatery positions play a part, ne didn't mention any other variable).

But comparing 1959 to 2006, there has been no change, or taking variables into account it goes up and down, but NEVER up and up, as the nutters keep spouting!

Circular reasoning, lol better than a house of cards in front of a wind turbine, (the NASA, IPCC chart shows constant rising since 1880, so going by the fort example, 45cm - 6cm for 2019 variance, equals almost 40cm, there is NO 40cm rise on my example, sorry Doug you wanna cling onto this myth, but it is a myth.

:P

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Just watched the rest of 2040, and brainwashed moron covers it!

He supposedly sits on top of a wind turbine, (which l don't believe, or one slip and you are dead) and talks to a flake about how wonderful these monstrosities are. Then some more children, spouting nothing, (apart from playing mineraft, not really) and the funniest part he shows the slimy tactics, or disbelievers of using nice images of birds and staff on their sites to spout lies, (truths in other words).

He would probably burn me at the stake for pushing evil hard evidence of no sea level rise!

Another fanatic with a big budget pushing his cult to the world, with a sprinkling of some ok ideas around a lot of ugly ones!

A bright future isn't having to share a car with 4 other people every day, paying very high electricity prices, sharing solar power, until the lights go out, but growing food on city roofs, may have merit, but l would be b*****ed if l had to muck around with that.

 

making all trains electric, our trains are already electric, and thanks to out dimwit premier allowing rampant immagration, our trains are almost at capacity, or standing only at peak hour, (l also read today peoples manners are dropping, which is no surprize since, our lord mayer is also an idiot by banning cars in our city.

He is pushing walking or riding, try doing either on a freezing cold day, with wind and rain,.....oh, l keep forgetting our winters are going to magically disappear?

 

So our electricity prices keep going up, and dimwit only allows off shore gas extraction, (so gas is high also) and no dams, since our country won't get any rain anymore, and wants to close another coal plant soon, eventhough his cult religion has no bases in fact, and none of this makes any difference globally if it where true.

Then our electricy goes up again, heavy industry leaves more and more, street lights get dimmer or switched off, (a muggers paradise) and dodgy solar/wind and an army of diesal gen, take over.

 

We have to endure this moron for another 2 years, and since the young are wising up, he should be gone, ............finally!

<_<

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Videos are anecdotal evidence.  They don't correct for anything.  They are useful when all else fails to substantiate your claim, as you are using them.  But I am a science nerd.  I want data I can analyse and you aren't providing much.  On the other hand, NOAA and others have lots of it.  So whose data am I going to believe?

Don't take my word or anybody else's, but DO do your own analysis.  Without an anlysis, you have nothing - not even a hypothesis.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

since our country won't get any rain anymore,

Why is that, do you think?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

Videos are anecdotal evidence.  They don't correct for anything.  They are useful when all else fails to substantiate your claim, as you are using them.  But I am a science nerd.  I want data I can analyse and you aren't providing much.  On the other hand, NOAA and others have lots of it.  So whose data am I going to believe?

Don't take my word or anybody else's, but DO do your own analysis.  Without an anlysis, you have nothing - not even a hypothesis.

Doug

Sure go to NOAA, as long as you go to the legit one, or the one LS uses or Tony H.

Hypothesis, lol, well l looked at an old image and a recent one and it shows no sea level rise, that is pretty frickin solid evidence! Pretty obvious that you are going to get into big words, and fance equations again or cherry pick this to death to show that no sea level rise is invalid somehow, or the AL Gore cherry pick it enough and he ends up right syndrome.

If you want to keep believing in this crap that is your concearn, l have presented solid evidence to anyone who is sane that it is crap, case closed!

1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

Why is that, do you think?

Doug

Because our premier is an idiot, (Australia has drought and flooding rains, or farmers that have farmed for over 100 years, know that fact, our dimwit doesn't because his demented regious beliefs don't allow it).

<_<

Edited by tmcom
Talking to a wall..

Share this post


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

Sure go to NOAA, as long as you go to the legit one, or the one LS uses or Tony H.

NOAA has hundreds, if not thousands of useful datasets, but they aren't the only ones.  In the US, their instrumental records only go back to about 1890, but there are others, kept by the Army Surgeon's Office and Signal Corps that go back at least to the 1820s.  The US Weather Bureau has some records going back to 1880.  There are records from Europe going back to 1600 or so.  There's the HadCrut4 dataset and its predecessors.  There are sunspot records back to December 6, 1610 (Mostly British). NCDC has over 9400 proxy datasets.  The National Archives have something like 600 reels of microfilms with weather data on them.  The "Forts" dataset is maintained by the University of Illinois.  Each national government has datasets of its own that you might use, including Autsralia.

If you don't like NOAA's, use a different one.  Doesn't matter to me which one.

 

13 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Because our premier is an idiot!

So now you're blaming your lack of rain on your premier....  I didn't know he could make rain.

Doug

P.S.:  Make that:  NOAA has tens of thousands of useful datasets.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

P.S.:  Make that:  NOAA has tens of thousands of useful datasets.

Doug

Forgot to include records like Thomas Jefferson's diary - he was a weather nerd.  We have journals of our own explorers who noted where the sand dunes were.

Also, there are several centuries-long records from ancient times involving how much water came down the Nile.  One of these was a large wheel hooked to a float that recorded the water's height.  Another was a set of stairs going down into the water.  Priests had only to check which stair-step was under water to know how high the Nile got.  They provided us with a pretty good estimate of rainfall in Ethiopia (Those stair-steps still exist, so we can calibrate ancient records with modern ones and put actual numbers on those observations.

Indian history hides record the "resting summer" in which it was so dry there was no feed for the horses.  Travelers had to spend long times waiting for the horses to find enough grass to live on.  That was the summer of 1855.  It is confirmed by tree rings right here in Oklahoma, among other places.

And there are some tree ring records that go back 8400 years (bristlecone pines).  There are two chronologies that reach all the way to the ice age and the University of Missouri is working on one for North America.  New Zealand is working on one that will reach back 60,000 years when complete.

We have about 20 chronologies that go back over 2000 years.  The Annals of the Four Masters is confirmed by them:  536 AD was a very bad year.

There are LOTS of records you could be using.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

Forgot to include records like Thomas Jefferson's diary - he was a weather nerd.  We have journals of our own explorers who noted where the sand dunes were.

Also, there are several centuries-long records from ancient times involving how much water came down the Nile.  One of these was a large wheel hooked to a float that recorded the water's height.  Another was a set of stairs going down into the water.  Priests had only to check which stair-step was under water to know how high the Nile got.  They provided us with a pretty good estimate of rainfall in Ethiopia (Those stair-steps still exist, so we can calibrate ancient records with modern ones and put actual numbers on those observations.

Indian history hides record the "resting summer" in which it was so dry there was no feed for the horses.  Travelers had to spend long times waiting for the horses to find enough grass to live on.  That was the summer of 1855.  It is confirmed by tree rings right here in Oklahoma, among other places.

And there are some tree ring records that go back 8400 years (bristlecone pines).  There are two chronologies that reach all the way to the ice age and the University of Missouri is working on one for North America.  New Zealand is working on one that will reach back 60,000 years when complete.

We have about 20 chronologies that go back over 2000 years.  The Annals of the Four Masters is confirmed by them:  536 AD was a very bad year.

There are LOTS of records you could be using.

Doug

P.S.:  The University of Florida has found a bunch of loblolly pine logs buried in mud for hundreds of years.  They're working on a chronology that will tun from about 500 AD to 1500 AD.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

I keep seeing on UM that climate change is a hoax so that scientists can get grants.  Anybody can get a grant.  You don't need to be a scientist.  If you own at least 40 acres, you can get govt money to plant trees on it, or to cut trees if there are too many.  You can get a tree-planting tax credit if you own at least one acre.  You can get tax credits and income exemptions for installing a solar or geothermal heating system for your home.  The list goes on and on for thousands of pages.

 

Just what do you have to do to get a scientific grant?  First, I suggest you write a white paper.  This is a blank proposal, written up without any specific granting agency in mind.  It's good practice for when you write the real one.

Include the title, your name, granting agency, dates of grant and the total amount.  That's the title page

Then the abstract:  Include purpose of your project (You don't get money if you don't do a specific project.), objectives, methods, significance (how is your project going to improve the world?)

In the Introduction go into detail on the problem you are trying to solve (Why is this a problem?), Purpose, Objectives (EXACTLY what do you want to do?), significance (How the world will be better off if your project is funded), uniqueness (Why is your project different?  What new features are you inventing/including?)

Literaturwe Review:  the people who review your proposal will be experts in the field.  They want to know that you are familiar with the field in which you are seeking funding, that you're not reinventing the wheel.

Narrative:  Define the problem' restate objectives, methods, procedures, Outcomes, how you will evaluate your results and how you will disseminate your findings.

Personnel:  who will work on the project?  What are his qualifications?

Budget:  How much money do you need?  What are you going to do with it?

 

Having written up your white paper, get a list of funding agencies that might be interested in your project.  Rewrite the entire paper to meet whatever specs are called for by the agency you will submit to.

 

Having done all that, you have a 25% chance of being funded, so you're probably going to be writing up the idea for a another agency.  After five or six attempts, you get funded.  But you don't get the money for nothing.  You have to spend it the way you said you would in the grant proposal or you could have to pay it all back and/or go to jail for defrauding the Federal government.  If you don't discover anything, you still have to write up a research paper saying you didn't find anything.  Just try and get THAT published.

Good luck.  The odds are never in your favor.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

According to a theory advanced on the internet, global warming is the Creator's reaction to the contraceptive pill, and the hippy's "Summer of Love". Certainly a novel proposition, that would have been beyond my capabilities to imagine.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 10/17/2019 at 9:23 AM, tmcom said:

Well, l watched the video again, and he said, that levels have gone up and down since, 1914, with a 15cm variance, and are now 6cm lower than it was in 1914, so going by datasets we are propably in an mini ice age, (but as the guy said, planatery positions play a part, ne didn't mention any other variable).

There are small random variations in sea level, so technically, he is not lying.  But he is misleading you by not telling the whole truth.  And that is that ON AVERAGE, sea levels have risen, worldwide, since at least 1886.

Ice melt records and temps show strong evidence that we are in a warming trend and except for two small hiatuses (16 years and 7 years), neither long enough to consider climate change, temps have risen since 1910.  Even before 1910 temps were rising, but not very fast.  The low point was 1841 which was the dying gasp of the Little Ice Age.  There's a local peak in 1855 which is clearly not part of the LIA, so the end of the LIA is arbitrarily set in 1850.

The Milankovitch Cycles exert a controlling effect in earth's climate WHEN THERE'S NO MAN-MADE INTERFERENCE.  We are simply over-powering them by dumping carbon into the atmosphere.

Doug

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
14 hours ago, Habitat said:

According to a theory advanced on the internet, global warming is the Creator's reaction to the contraceptive pill, and the hippy's "Summer of Love". Certainly a novel proposition, that would have been beyond my capabilities to imagine.

Ah, yes.  The Summer of Love.  1967.  Che Guevara is killed.  San Francisco hippies hold a mock-funeral for "Hippy," feeling that the idea is obsolete.  The Vietnam War.  I was working at a camp in New Jersey and missed most of what was going on.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 10/15/2019 at 11:02 AM, tmcom said:

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

But nutjobs can dismiss anything they want! Apparently!

:gun:

And deniers will believe anything.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 10/16/2019 at 4:04 AM, tmcom said:

Me and 500 more! I will ignore the feeble attempt at humor, or rebuttal.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

The Flat Earth Climate Emergency is real, lol.

:gun:

Only 500?  I can find thousands.  But science is not a popularity contest or up for a vote.  One person can be right while everybody else is wrong.  It happened in geology when the plate tectonic theory was first proposed.  I heard lectures in college that attempted to debunk it.

In order to make a convincing case, you must post your evidence, an analysis of it and an explanation as to why you think things are that way.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 10/16/2019 at 12:08 AM, tmcom said:

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

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:

So you're going to buy an inflatable boat and run from a sea rising at one foot per century?  A casual stroll would more than suffice.

How serious a given rate of rise is depends on the slope of the adjoining shore and the height of the 100-year flood.  The coasts of the Red Sea and Bangladesh will move 2000 feet inland with a one-foot rise in sea level.  At Mont Desert Island in Maine, nobody's going to notice - the shore is a cliff.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Yes, the Flat Earth Climate Emergency faithful are going insane trying to cover their a****, (l won't quote recent examples) which is understandable considering the 30 year, cocaine equivalent, end is nigh bender they have enjoyed, is losing ground.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Lol, Love it, the English are fed up with the Extinction Rebellion Nutcases, disrupting their lives.

Go about 5.00 minutes in, and l only hope that AU adopts this, since most of us have had enough of these nutcases.

: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.