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

So they want 0 Carbon by 2024, or affectively ****up the entire country, cause massive unemployment, and send heavy industry off to the US, so it only shifts power away from the UK, and the usual, sea level rising the end is nigh, schycotism.

The British people are getting sick of these idiots, since they are not going to lose their jobs, for these d***heads, over the top hysteria.

At least flat earthers don't disrupt peoples lives for their insane beliefs.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Yes, close down all of the airports, and factory's and stop using cars and trucks, by 2025, because of our hysterical beliefs. IF these idoits got their way, there would be another French revolution, to get rid of the party or group and put a real gov, back in power.

These artivests are only speeding up their demise as being a legit party and just being nutcases.

Ego warriors, lol.

I won't post the letter, since they are saying, we can pullute our brains out, and unless you give us something better we will keep doing so, elist ar****holes, nothing more!

<_<

Share this post


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

So they want 0 Carbon by 2024,

They won't make it.  2040 is iffy.  2050 is a more realistic goal.

But the good news here is that we can reach zero carbon emissions.  At the current rate, the US will be generating 60% of its power from renewables by 2030.  That accomplishment would be nothing to sneeze at.  It's a little below AOC's goals, but at least, it is achievable.  Australia might need more time to straighten up the political mess, but it. too, could reach zero carbon emissions by 2050, if not 2040.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 10/20/2019 at 10:22 AM, tmcom said:

I won't post the letter, since they are saying, we can pullute our brains out, and unless you give us something better we will keep doing so, elist ar****holes, nothing more!

That's the whole point of conversion - giving you/them something better.

Conversion is not about making a poorer, more-expensive world.  It's about making a cleaner and less-expensive world to live in.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Got an unsolicited email, today that l immediately marked as pilfering spam, crapping on about this...

https://medium.com/in-kind/explaining-the-green-new-deal-and-its-critical-urgency-3c3f9e7796d9

All looks nice with shiny panels and green pastures inbetween these monstrosities, (as least cows can handle them) which basically says, destroy our economy's globally, to do something that will increase the intensity of natural disasters, and reduce wheat and other crops that thrive on increased CO2,....oh, and kill of the poor!

This is what desperation and a ton of cash can do, a slick site that is full of it!

Apparently Cortez, and some other nutter are flogging this in congress, as a last ditch effort to secure a trillion or two a year, and umm, yeah!

:lol:

Share this post


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

Got an unsolicited email, today that l immediately marked as pilfering spam, crapping on about this...

https://medium.com/in-kind/explaining-the-green-new-deal-and-its-critical-urgency-3c3f9e7796d9

All looks nice with shiny panels and green pastures inbetween these monstrosities, (as least cows can handle them) which basically says, destroy our economy's globally, to do something that will increase the intensity of natural disasters, and reduce wheat and other crops that thrive on increased CO2,....oh, and kill of the poor!

This is what desperation and a ton of cash can do, a slick site that is full of it!

Apparently Cortez, and some other nutter are flogging this in congress, as a last ditch effort to secure a trillion or two a year, and umm, yeah!

:lol:

So what's the problem - other than the Green New Deal being unrealistically ambitious?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Update on recent activities:  White Paper on Edge Plots is done.  Extended abstract on edge plots is waiting for the illustrator to finish up.  Otherwise, that project is done until the conference - week before Thanksgiving.  Back to work on climate change in Oklahoma.  Apparently, most of our increased humidity is coming from the Gulf.  Maybe some is being brought in by El Ninos.  Have to check that out.  I foresee a crash course in the movement of air masses coming up.  There's an article out on the use of tree rings to track the position of the North Atlantic jet.  Data goes back to 1725.  I have some data going back to the 1650s; maybe I could extend that back another 75 years.

Spending today transcribing humidity data for northwestern Oklahoma (yawn).

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So what's the problem - other than the Green New Deal being unrealistically ambitious?

Doug

Umm, probably killing the poor one?

But let's check on our Labor party's hysteria...

Funny the commentator says the same thing as l did, Fort Denizen in Sydney harbour shows a 6cm decrease on global oceans levels, and visual evidence, or seeing an image from 146 years ago, and comparing it with a current one, shows that nothing is happening!!!! But l keep forgetting it is the vibe, the angle, how many unicorns where there, etc.

Loved the lobotomy remark, but if labor keeps pushing this nonsense they will keep losing, sweet!

Go about 5.30 minutes in and Andrew Bolt shows a rock and coastline, one from 114 years ago and this year,....no change again, duh!

I don't know whether to prescribe a labotomy to the faithful or pat them on the head?

But either way it is becoming more and more funny to see how far, supposedly grown adults will push this?

Sorry, Flat Earth Climate Emergency!

:lol:

Share this post


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

Umm, probably killing the poor one?

But let's check on our Labor party's hysteria...

Funny the commentator says the same thing as l did, Fort Denizen in Sydney harbour shows a 6cm decrease on global oceans levels, and visual evidence, or seeing an image from 146 years ago, and comparing it with a current one, shows that nothing is happening!!!! But l keep forgetting it is the vibe, the angle, how many unicorns where there, etc.

Loved the lobotomy remark, but if labor keeps pushing this nonsense they will keep losing, sweet!

Go about 5.30 minutes in and Andrew Bolt shows a rock and coastline, one from 114 years ago and this year,....no change again, duh!

I don't know whether to prescribe a labotomy to the faithful or pat them on the head?

But either way it is becoming more and more funny to see how far, supposedly grown adults will push this?

Sorry, Flat Earth Climate Emergency!

:lol:

So you're using commentators as your source - people who don't check their facts before they start talking.  ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.  That way you get rid of the spins, misquotes and mistakes made by later writers.  So what did the ORIGINAL articles say?  Do you even know who wrote them and where they came from?

And then there's the problem of less than 1 foot of sea level rise in Sydney Harbor since 1920.  Your postings make no mention of how far above either tides or datum the sea level was when the pictures were taken.  You have no data to back up your claims.  Sydney Harbor's sea level rise is extremely low compared to the rest of the world.  I don't know if it's the lowest, but it might be.  It's an extremely poor example for your cause.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

So you're using commentators as your source - people who don't check their facts before they start talking.  ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.  That way you get rid of the spins, misquotes and mistakes made by later writers.  So what did the ORIGINAL articles say?  Do you even know who wrote them and where they came from?

And then there's the problem of less than 1 foot of sea level rise in Sydney Harbor since 1920.  Your postings make no mention of how far above either tides or datum the sea level was when the pictures were taken.  You have no data to back up your claims.  Sydney Harbor's sea level rise is extremely low compared to the rest of the world.  I don't know if it's the lowest, but it might be.  It's an extremely poor example for your cause.

Doug

I know you will dismiss all of this solid, ....obvious evidence, since you are putting the lacework on your Peer Reviewed paper, but credidentials are irrelevant, if the oceans are rising by 3mm a year, then after 100 years it should be obvious!!!!!!

And the Fort Denizen example, both images were taken at low tide, with high tidel marks being the same also. But if you want the grit from a scientists, here you go....

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/10/opera-house-still-above-sea-level-despite-homogenisation/

Cycles within cycles, but no sea level trend going up and up!

But we are getting a rise of half a mill, a year, or 1cm every 20 years of 10cm every 100 years, although we have had no change previously or very little.

And we are currently down 6cm, so by the year 2100, our children will have the horrific responsibility of a 4cm rise, lol,....as l said, pretty funny!

 

:PPS extremely poor example, no it is an extremely good example for anyone who is well adjusted...and who hasn't had a lobotomy! Au, sea levels are lower, lol, all oceans are interconnected, or in other words, nothing will sway you from the gov, teat. PPS forget about AU, we aren't buying it anymore!

And this....https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-01/Div_Syd_sydney_harbour_vulnerability_studies.pdf

Which shows conjecture based on the latest nonsense, but also shows according to their data a horrific, 2.3cm rise in world ocean levels by 2100, as l said the faithful keep ignoring the obvious, while the masses don't and it is pretty obvious where all of this will end up,....Flat Earthers is a hint!

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


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

I know you will dismiss all of this solid, ....obvious evidence, since you are putting the lacework on your Peer Reviewed paper, but credidentials are irrelevant, if the oceans are rising by 3mm a year, then after 100 years it should be obvious!!!!!!

And the Fort Denizen example, both images were taken at low tide, with high tidel marks being the same also. But if you want the grit from a scientists, here you go....

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/10/opera-house-still-above-sea-level-despite-homogenisation/

Cycles within cycles, but no sea level trend going up and up!

But we are getting a rise of half a mill, a year, or 1cm every 20 years of 10cm every 100 years, although we have had no change previously or very little.

And we are currently down 6cm, so by the year 2100, our children will have the horrific responsibility of a 4cm rise, lol,....as l said, pretty funny!

:PPS extremely poor example, no it is an extremely good example for anyone who is well adjusted...

For openers:- third paragraph - there has been a two-meter drop in the New South Wales coastline over the last few thousand years.  This would create an apparent (but not real) rise in sea level of two meters.  Then in the last sentence the writer says its a FALL in sea levels.  Make up your mind!

The author points out that the 1886-2010 record for Ft. Denison is but a blip in time and COULD represent an unrepresentative period in sea level rise.  That's true.  We have the same problem with weather, tree rings, etc.  If you want to say that sea level rise is more apparent than real, you can say that our records do not reflect the long-term trend and in that respect you might be right.

 

I don't know how it is in Australia, but under US law, when the erosion of a shoreline is slow, the property line moves with the shoreline.  Thus, property rights would not change in the US - the owners would lose title to any land beyond the low-tide mark and that would be the end of it.  Is Australia different?

 

So how much sea level rise is the world likely to see by 2100?  There's a 95% probability that the average will not exceed one meter.  There's also a 5% chance that it will be less than 10cm.  What's the difference?  Most glacial melt now occurring is the result of ice erosion by ocean currents.  But that won't always be the case.  Once the ice sheets melt back to the high-water mark, they will not be accessible to ocean currents; thus, we're likely to see a slowing of ice melt and also of sea level rise.

 

Once again:  there is no point in panicking over sea level rise because in the short term we can't do anything about it.  Just get out of the way.

Doug

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

And it was a 2 metre difference, 16,000 years ago!

B)

Share this post


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

And it was a 2 metre difference, 16,000 years ago!

B)

That's still a confusing way to write it.

Jennifer Marohasy has explained herself in some papers she has published in scientific journals.  She is a qualified scientist.  Unfortunately, she has published nothing to refute sea level rise or climate change.  I wish she would because she would have to lay her evidence on the table where everybody could look at it.  Her publications since 2001 have been more informed speculation than actual science.  But if she has something to base her opinions on, I would like to see it.

Doug

Share this post


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

Umm, probably killing the poor one?

The Green New Deal envisions govt employees building the needed infrastructure.  That's tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs.  That infrastructure could also be built by private industry.  In either case, that;s more jobs.  These jobs would be skilled and semi-skilled work - jobs that pay a lot better than the half-jobs currently being counted as full employment by our govt.  That would produce a sharp decline in poverty, something the right wing is not interested in accomplishing.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The author points out that the 1886-2010 record for Ft. Denison is but a blip in time and COULD represent an unrepresentative period in sea level rise.  That's true.  We have the same problem with weather, tree rings, etc.  If you want to say that sea level rise is more apparent than real, you can say that our records do not reflect the long-term trend and in that respect you might be right.

Just had a thought:  that two meter drop in land surface was spread over 16,000 years.  That's well into the Ice Age.  The continental moraine stood at Ft. Wayne, Indiana.  Sea levels were something like 150m below what they are now (Pardi and Newman 1987).

Over that 16,000 years, sea levels have risen about 500 feet!  Of course, that's glacial melt and there isn't that much ice left on earth.  Future sea level rise isn't going to be anywhere near that extensive.

 

About the Sydney Opera House:  protect it from sea level rise, or don't.  If you're right, it'll still be above water in another hundred years.  If not, it won't.  Why not just wait and see?  Of course, then it might be too late.

Doug

 

Pardi, R. and W. Newman.  1987.  Late Quaternary sea levels along the Atlantic Coast of North America.  Journal of Coastal Research, 3(3), 325-330.  https://journals.flvc.org/jcr/article/view/77600  24 Oct 2019.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Green New Deal envisions govt employees building the needed infrastructure.  That's tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs.  That infrastructure could also be built by private industry.  In either case, that;s more jobs.  These jobs would be skilled and semi-skilled work - jobs that pay a lot better than the half-jobs currently being counted as full employment by our govt.  That would produce a sharp decline in poverty, something the right wing is not interested in accomplishing.

Doug

Looks like l have to post this again!

40,000 this winter are going to die in their freezing homes, due to stupid climate policies, pushing solar and wind, and pushing up electrical costs, due to ending up in higher bracket levels!

Solar is crap in winter with snow, wind, less so, although in some countries it is the same.

And the Green deal video l previously posted also said this, but sugar coated it,....or the world is going to end, so kill off the poor!

And what happens if by 2030, nothing happens, when we have slightly cleaner air, more power blackouts, and have killed off almost half a million pensioners and poor, that is the price and legacy you and the other faithful are paying for this Cult!

6 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Just had a thought:  that two meter drop in land surface was spread over 16,000 years.  That's well into the Ice Age.  The continental moraine stood at Ft. Wayne, Indiana.  Sea levels were something like 150m below what they are now (Pardi and Newman 1987).

Over that 16,000 years, sea levels have risen about 500 feet!  Of course, that's glacial melt and there isn't that much ice left on earth.  Future sea level rise isn't going to be anywhere near that extensive.

About the Sydney Opera House:  protect it from sea level rise, or don't.  If you're right, it'll still be above water in another hundred years.  If not, it won't.  Why not just wait and see?  Of course, then it might be too late.

Doug

Pardi, R. and W. Newman.  1987.  Late Quaternary sea levels along the Atlantic Coast of North America.  Journal of Coastal Research, 3(3), 325-330.  https://journals.flvc.org/jcr/article/view/77600  24 Oct 2019.

Might be too late, lol,but since worldwide no sea levels are rising, and the planet is't warming, with the moon and planets having a negligible impact on sea levels, with no change over the last 150 years, l would say we are laughing,

But since you are fanatical about this, and will most likely forget about the 40k, death thing, in order to live with yourself, good luck with that, l couldn't, or can't, especially when green nuts, have caused this by not thinking and just doing. And l would put up a new thread about your Paper, since it never gets a response on this thread. Or l have a few things to say about a Cult that is murdering people, but l won't say it here!

B)

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


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

Looks like l have to post this again!

40,000 this winter are going to die in their freezing homes, due to stupid climate policies, pushing solar and wind, and pushing up electrical costs, due to ending up in higher bracket levels!

No matter how many times you post it, it's still BS.

Only bungled application will cause that result.  Do not shut down the old systems until you have the new ones to replace them.  Anybody but Australians can see this.  In the US our old systems are wearing out.  In a few years they will be shutting themselves down.  We need to have our new systems up and running before that happens.  By-and-large, we are doing that - at least well enough that we don't have disruptions in service.  Transition is a technical problem with technical solutions.  Politicians can give the direction, but when it comes to operations, they need to let those who know how do the job.

BTW:  Interesting fire shot on your video.  California, in fact most of the southwest, is currently in a red flag condition, due in large part to climate change.  https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/afm/  The Colorado fires are near my old district, but not so near that I'd be called up to fight them.  Some people have to stay home, just in case something happens.

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

Solar is crap in winter with snow, wind, less so, although in some countries it is the same.

I've already told you about my friend, a retired chemistry professor, who built a house with passive solar heat.  It works all year around, snow or not, clouds or not.  Such a system would work almost anywhere in Australia, if you have the foresight to build them.  AND after you have amortized construction costs, the heat is free.  Can't beat that.

Active solar only has a problem with snow if its lenses are covered.  The solar fields are waste high so that they can be maintained without resorting to ladders, etc.  And that includes snow removal.  Also, the panels can be heated so that snow melts before it blocks the lens.

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

And the Green deal video l previously posted also said this, but sugar coated it,....or the world is going to end, so kill off the poor!

Here is a summary of the Green New Deal:  https://www.gp.org/gnd_full

Here is the actual text:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

It is a non-binding resolution.  It delegates no authority to implement anything.  It merely expresses the intent of Congress.  The Senate didn't pass it.  That doesn't matter because it still expresses the intent of the House.

From the erroneous comments on what the Green New Deal would do, one can easily tell that tRUMP has not read it.  It does NOT do away with planes, trains or automobiles, oil, gas or the military.  It does not outlaw cows.  Anybody who says it does, hasn't read it.

Here is a Fact-Check analysis of it:  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

And what happens if by 2030, nothing happens, when we have slightly cleaner air, more power blackouts, and have killed off almost half a million pensioners and poor, that is the price and legacy you and the other faithful are paying for this Cult!

This is a non-issue as the GND cannot be implemented by 2030.  The technology for CO2 reduction doesn't exist.  We have to invent that and it probably won't come on line until 2050 or so.  Also, we do not have the physical capacity to fully convert to WWS by 2030.  We (the US) would have to build 180,000 wind turbines and as of now, we don't have enough trained crews, turbine plants, etc.  Maybe we could build those by 2030, but that's still not 180,000 wind turbines.

Pensioners (I'll be one by 2030, in fact, I'm one right now.) and the poor still have welfare benefits - those will not be reduced and may be increased.  If the GND results in an increase in good jobs, there will be fewer people on the welfare rolls and more tax money available to fund them.

AND:  we are killing off more people than that with coal smoke every year.  Your objection is BS.

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

Might be too late, lol,but since worldwide no sea levels are rising, and the planet is't warming, with the moon and planets having a negligible impact on sea levels, with no change over the last 150 years, l would say we are laughing,

But since you are fanatical about this, and will most likely forget about the 40k, death thing, in order to live with yourself, good luck with that, l couldn't, or can't, especially when green nuts, have caused this by not thinking and just doing. And l would put up a new thread about your Paper, since it never gets a response on this thread. Or l have a few things to say about a Cult that is murdering people, but l won't say it here!

You are calling research scientists fanatics.  I don't have to read somebody else's articles like you do.  I do my own analyses.  Like it or not, Oklahoma is getting warmer and wetter.  I have the data and analysis to prove it.  Also, many Oklahoma city temperatures track with global temperature increases.  How is that possible if the world isn't getting warmer?

Your comments strongly suggest you do not have a technological background.  Your basic assumption is that nothing new is going to be invented.  You do not even consider how an electrical grid can be operated to prevent blackouts and make power available to anyone who needs it whenever they want it.  Your comments suggest you have bought into the denialist lie that clean energy costs more, when the opposite is true.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No matter how many times you post it, it's still BS.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7535747/Britain-facing-silent-crisis-emerges-16-500-people-died-freezing-homes-year.html

Quote

Around 16,500 winter deaths last year were linked to cold homes, official figures revealed yesterday.

Ok, so it isn't 40k, although this is for England only, so adding Scotland, etc?

But for this conversation it is still 16,500 deaths last year from people or a country with wind/solar and nuclear everywhere

They crap on about changing with is BS, they change and it goes back up eventually, or is useless overall, just a political answer, that is why most pensioners don't bother..

Our electrical costs went up at least 85% when one of our big coal plants was closed down, because we where put into a higher bracket, (already covered that in the distant AU video with the red head on the YT video somewhere here, couldn't find it, but it is here).

20 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Only bungled application will cause that result.  Do not shut down the old systems until you have the new ones to replace them.  Anybody but Australians can see this.  In the US our old systems are wearing out.  In a few years they will be shutting themselves down.  We need to have our new systems up and running before that happens.  By-and-large, we are doing that - at least well enough that we don't have disruptions in service.  Transition is a technical problem with technical solutions.  Politicians can give the direction, but when it comes to operations, they need to let those who know how do the job.

BTW:  Interesting fire shot on your video.  California, in fact most of the southwest, is currently in a red flag condition, due in large part to climate change.  https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/afm/  The Colorado fires are near my old district, but not so near that I'd be called up to fight them.  Some people have to stay home, just in case something happens.

I believe that LS covered that also, or California's premier is a greenie nutjob, so mismanages and blames climate change.

20 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

I've already told you about my friend, a retired chemistry professor, who built a house with passive solar heat.  It works all year around, snow or not, clouds or not.  Such a system would work almost anywhere in Australia, if you have the foresight to build them.  AND after you have amortized construction costs, the heat is free.  Can't beat that.

Active solar only has a problem with snow if its lenses are covered.  The solar fields are waste high so that they can be maintained without resorting to ladders, etc.  And that includes snow removal.  Also, the panels can be heated so that snow melts before it blocks the lens.

Here is a summary of the Green New Deal:  https://www.gp.org/gnd_full

Here is the actual text:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

It is a non-binding resolution.  It delegates no authority to implement anything.  It merely expresses the intent of Congress.  The Senate didn't pass it.  That doesn't matter because it still expresses the intent of the House.

From the erroneous comments on what the Green New Deal would do, one can easily tell that tRUMP has not read it.  It does NOT do away with planes, trains or automobiles, oil, gas or the military.  It does not outlaw cows.  Anybody who says it does, hasn't read it.

Here is a Fact-Check analysis of it:  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/

This is a non-issue as the GND cannot be implemented by 2030.  The technology for CO2 reduction doesn't exist.  We have to invent that and it probably won't come on line until 2050 or so.  Also, we do not have the physical capacity to fully convert to WWS by 2030.  We (the US) would have to build 180,000 wind turbines and as of now, we don't have enough trained crews, turbine plants, etc.  Maybe we could build those by 2030, but that's still not 180,000 wind turbines.

Pensioners (I'll be one by 2030, in fact, I'm one right now.) and the poor still have welfare benefits - those will not be reduced and may be increased.  If the GND results in an increase in good jobs, there will be fewer people on the welfare rolls and more tax money available to fund them.

AND:  we are killing off more people than that with coal smoke every year.  Your objection is BS.

Your friends house is fine, but unless a country can build that for all of the poor, then the remark carries no credence here.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/20/older-person-dying-winter-fuel-poverty

And according to this one, it is 30k a year, but this also covers Wales, so 30k a year, or if Scotland is included, it would very likely be 40k a year, so it is not BS!

20 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

You are calling research scientists fanatics.  I don't have to read somebody else's articles like you do.  I do my own analyses.  Like it or not, Oklahoma is getting warmer and wetter.  I have the data and analysis to prove it.  Also, many Oklahoma city temperatures track with global temperature increases.  How is that possible if the world isn't getting warmer?

Your comments strongly suggest you do not have a technological background.  Your basic assumption is that nothing new is going to be invented.  You do not even consider how an electrical grid can be operated to prevent blackouts and make power available to anyone who needs it whenever they want it.  Your comments suggest you have bought into the denialist lie that clean energy costs more, when the opposite is true.

Doug

Some clearly are, especially the ones that refuse to see the obvious, eg; obvious sea level image comparisons!

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

I mentioned that a new study has determined the position of the North Atlantic jet using tree rings and going back to 1725.  Here's the address:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02699-3

When the North Atlantic jet is in its extreme northern position, Britain, Europe and New England get heat waves.  When it is in its extreme southern position, they get cold waves.  There has been an increase in these extremes since about 1960.  THAT is climate change.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7535747/Britain-facing-silent-crisis-emerges-16-500-people-died-freezing-homes-year.html

Ok, so it isn't 40k, although this is for England only, so adding Scotland, etc?

But for this conversation it is still 16,500 deaths last year from people or a country with wind/solar and nuclear everywhere

That is a result of more-extreme positions of the North Atlantic jet.  Climate change is the cause of those deaths.  If you want to stop them, change the climate back.

19 minutes ago, tmcom said:

They crap on about changing with is BS, they change and it goes back up eventually, or is useless overall, just a political answer, that is why most pensioners don't bother..

Our electrical costs went up at least 85% when one of our big coal plants was closed down, because we where put into a higher bracket, (already covered that in the distant AU video with the red head on the YT video somewhere here, couldn't find it, but it is here).

That's all Australian politics, a subject with which I am only marginally familiar.  But I suspect your problem is that you shut down your coal plant too soon.  You didn't build the replacement infrastructure first.  That doesn't prove that climate change isn't real - just that Australians are incompetent.

22 minutes ago, tmcom said:

I believe that LS covered that also, or California's premier is a greenie nutjob, so mismanages and blames climate change.

The red flag alert currently includes all five southwestern states and parts of nearby ones.  LS tries to blame it on lack of defensible space practices and that's true around houses and buildings.  But out in the wide-open spaces, the fires are worse than ever and fire season now lasts all year long.  Fuels buildup has been ongoing since fire control became effective in the early 20th century.  But forest litter only lasts about four or five years, so what's burning has built up since 2014.

Parts of this country want to become desert and with climate change and carelessness with fire, that's just what is happening.

29 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Your friends house is fine, but unless a country can build that for all of the poor, then the remark carries no credence here.

A country can do anything it wants to do.  If all the wealthy built this type of house, that would make more power available to other people.  Passive solar effectively extends your generation capacity.

A different friend built passive solar heating boxes for the windows in his very-conventional house.  They cost about $20 apiece - he made four.  They did not totally eliminate his heating bills, but they came close.  I used to heat with wood.  I burned six cords a year.  I cut and hauled it myself - about twelve eight-mile round trips a year.  It wasn't free, but it sure beat the cost of propane.  Apply some brain power.  Most of these problems are solvable.  As my grandmother used to say, "If your head is stupid, your whole body suffers."

 

As I posted before, there are hundreds of thousands of deaths each year caused by lung disease and other problems from using coal/oil/gas as fuels.  Maybe it was 16,500, or 40,000 or 70 thousand that died from a cold wave.  That's still not significant compared to coal poisonings.  And another question is:  why did their neighbors allow these people to die?  Where I live we have a program supported by voluntary donations to supply free electricity to those who cannot afford it.  It's run by the city.  No Federal or State money involved.  I invite my neighbors over to get warm and have a bowl of soup during cold waves.  What's the matter with you?

Doug

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Interesting thought:  Extreme drought increases the density of latewood.  So climate change is increasing he density of lumber.  Is this good, or bad?  Or maybe neither - it just is.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tortugabob

Read it and weep all you Algoreans and wind turbine wackos. NASA manipulated the data to make it appear there was global warming.  https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/nasa-may-have-faked-climate-data-says-retired-top-uk-govt-scientist/ 

Edited by tortugabob
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tortugabob

Doug said " When the North Atlantic jet is in its extreme northern position, Britain, Europe and New England get heat waves.  When it is in its extreme southern position, they get cold waves.  There has been an increase in these extremes since about 1960.  THAT is climate change."   But it doesn't say that man-made increases in CO2 is the cause of changes in the jet stream.  Face it Doug. CO2 increases because of temperature increases, not the other way around.

Edited by tortugabob
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Read it and weep all you Algoreans and wind turbine wackos. NASA manipulated the data to make it appear there was global warming.  https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/nasa-may-have-faked-climate-data-says-retired-top-uk-govt-scientist/ 

My own (original) data show that there's warming.  I don't care what NOAA/NASA say.

Wind is, at the moment, the best solution to carbon pollution I can think of.  But that doesn't mean it's the only solution.  Solar is poised for a major leap ahead, probably making it competitive with wind.  Wind, water and solar will all be part of a clean energy future and probably a little geothermal besides.  Nuclear fusion has just made another breakthrough; although, they've been making those for decades and it still doesn't look like we're ever going to see commercial fusion.  But, I'm open to any reasonable alternative that can be reduced to practice.

I downloaded Stahle's McCurtain County dataset and used it to cross-date my Bokoma dataset.  It worked.  That's how I know Stahle was accurate.  He created the McCurtain County chronology in 1982.  To create a fiction, he would have had to know that in 2013 I would use his dataset to cross-check a weather signal that he didn't even know of at the time.  Claims that NOAA/NASA's tens of thousands of datasets are wrong is completely fiction.  Even if you believe that, there are the "Forts" dataset and the one kept by the National Archives.  Then there's HadCruts 1, 2, 3 and 4.  I can't even name them all.  But I have a full page of URLs for different ones that I'll be glad to share with you.  And most of them have nothing to do with NASA.

Doug

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Doug said " When the North Atlantic jet is in its extreme northern position, Britain, Europe and New England get heat waves.  When it is in its extreme southern position, they get cold waves.  There has been an increase in these extremes since about 1960.  THAT is climate change."   But it doesn't say that man-made increases in CO2 is the cause of changes in the jet stream.  Face it Doug. CO2 increases because of temperature increases, not the other way around.

CO2 creates an energy buildup in the climate system.  That dissipates in any way it can and the easiest way is to change the jet streams.

Under natural conditions, warming oceans release CO2, causing a CO2 increase in the atmosphere.  Lag time is about 300 years.  That CO2, in turn, causes more warming of the air and oceans and more release of CO2.  But we have short-circuited the process.  We release CO2 directly into the air without going through the oceans.  There is no lag time at all.  That's the difference and that's what we're seeing.

Somewhere around here I have several pages of references explaining why it's CO2.  If and when I find them, I'll post them.

 

BTW:  Here is the climate denier ladder.  Which rung are you on?

 

1.     There is no such thing as climate change.

 

2.     OK, climate change is real, but we don't know what causes it.

 

3.     OK, we know humans are a major contributor, but there's nothing we can do about it.

 

4.     OK, there is plenty we can do about it, but it's too expensive.

 

5.     OK, conversion to green energy is cheaper than what we're doing now and conversion will create jobs, but how do we get China to go along?

 

6.     OK, China is ahead of the US, so how do we get the US to go along?

 

7.     OK, there's a lot we can do to get the US to go along, but how do we get politicians to go along?

Doug

  • Like 1

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.