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

The Irrational Climate Emergency

86 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

openozy
8 hours ago, tmcom said:

I go out regularly in my state, and can see that our summer is subdued, or more like Spring with a few hot days to remind us it is summer

And that's a really normal weather pattern?.Just more proof of global warming.But in a way we all might as well enjoy ourselves,greed and overpopulation will win over our survival every time.It's most likely too late anyway,so keep shovelling the coal.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


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

A fair number of  homes have burn't due to up to 30 years of fuel loads building in our national parks, and on farmers properties, and the drought, two of which were caused by Green dimwits, for the most part. Global warming, lol, Vic has had some nasty fires here, and our summer has been subdued, or we have had far worse in our past!

You keep asserting this.  In which government did they have the power to actually do as they say?  Can you provide a link to the actual bill and legislation?

Share this post


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

It does seem like people will be still screaming it's not climate change while their towns are on fire or under water.

And that's largely thanks to industry.

In light of Australia, it occurs to me I should probably change that from towns to countries.

Another one, in one ear,.....so someone lies or fails to predict impending doom 5 times in a row and you come back for more? Nothing more needs to be said!

And by the way large concentrations of CO2 does not increase fires, (fires increase with Oxygen, not Carbon Dioxide).

8 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

That's Australia through-and-through.  And southern California.

I have pretty-much traced Oklahoma's cedar invasion back to climate change.  Might as well run up the white flag and surrender as cedar has already won the war.  But there are those who think climate change is fake.  They try to tell me that Oklahoma's increased rainfall isn't climate change.  Really?  They can believe whatever they want, but they better get used to living with red-cedar because it's not paying any attention to their propaganda.

Doug

Finally some truth, yes, Oklahoma has increased rainfall, or moisture, which decreases temperatures, hence the worldwide evidence of decreasing temperatures, so the climate is changing but it is not getting hotter.

2 hours ago, openozy said:

And that's a really normal weather pattern?.Just more proof of global warming.But in a way we all might as well enjoy ourselves,greed and overpopulation will win over our survival every time.It's most likely too late anyway,so keep shovelling the coal.

No that is evidence of Global cooling.

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

You keep asserting this.  In which government did they have the power to actually do as they say?  Can you provide a link to the actual bill and legislation?

After the last wide spread fire in 2009, there was a Royal Commission, whereby backburning was strongly recommended, with both sides of politics, (more so labor/Greens since they cannot think rationally) doing the opposite, (couldn't be bothered digging up links).

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

This is how stupid rising sea levels are, (previous Fort D, chart/video showing average sea levels for Sydney Harbor, either on this thread or another, showing a 6cm drop recently).

VtxvFqo.jpg

This is Sydney Harbor bay, or 100% open to the Pacific Ocean!

HpELxBY.jpg

And Sydney Harbor connected to this giant body of water.

EkRilvS.jpg

This body of water, or ocean, (Au is top, left).

So if anyone says that Sydney Harbor is dropping, while this ocean which almost covers half of our planet, when viewed from space, is rising, yeah, they have serious psychological problems.

The only emergency is people that keep thinking that there is an emergency!

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
Quote

A weird animated graphic depicting a distorted, lumpy Earth has gone viral over the ‘Net in the past few days, claiming that this is what the Earth looks like “without water.”

...

That’s not at all what it shows. What it actually depicts is the Earth’s geoid: a way of describing Earth’s gravitational field. The original graphic is a product of the MATLAB package described by Ales Bezdek (credits at that link). Here it is in all its knobby goodness:

...

Another way to describe the geoid is that it’s the shape of an object if it’s perfectly fluid; if the surface is allowed to flow freely.

For a perfectly homogeneous object (say a big nonrotating drop of water in space) the geoid would be a sphere. For the Earth, well, it’s what’s shown in the graphic. In other words, that graphic doesn’t show the Earth without water, it shows what the shape of the Earth’s surface would look like if the surface were entirely covered in water.

https://slate.com/technology/2015/09/earth-without-water-nope.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And by the way large concentrations of CO2 does not increase fires, (fires increase with Oxygen, not Carbon Dioxide).

Hold on a minute there, use some of the logic you are so proud of possessing.

Brush fires and forest fires are caused by neither an increase in oxygen or suppressed by an  increase in CO2.  The amount of change in the atmosphere required to do that would be inimical to many species of higher life.

Lack of moisture and sparks either from natural sources or man are enough to cause a fire. 

Fuel loading may contribute.  I don't know how it works in Australia, but in dry parts of Oregon, invasive species also contribute.  They are opportunistic, flourishing and out-competing native species in the wetter years;.  In dry years, they die back and add a lot of combustible plant mass per acre.

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Finally some truth, yes, Oklahoma has increased rainfall, or moisture, which decreases temperatures, hence the worldwide evidence of decreasing temperatures, so the climate is changing but it is not getting hotter.

Full stop at hence to apply logic.  Patterns in Oklahoma cannot be generalized into a definitive for the entire earth.  Jet streams, other winds, and ocean currents change and move on the global surface. That movement may bring rain and cooler temperatures when it moves and deprive the area it once covered of moisture.  The globe is not homogeneous.  One local geographic area does not replicate the earth's weather pattern.  That moisture that Doug is getting might have gone somewhere else 20 years ago.

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

No that is evidence of Global cooling.

One area cannot give you a definite answer for either.

 

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

So if anyone says that Sydney Harbor is dropping, while this ocean which almost covers half of our planet, when viewed from space, is rising, yeah, they have serious psychological problems.

I know that you put a lot of stock in sea level  and I suspect that the oceans are not flat like a stationary  bowl of water on your kitchen counter. We know it piles up at the equator, satellites can measure that.

So some other logical correlation  might help you, temperature for example.  Water changes at a known rate  from 0C to 100C. Within that range, as temperature goes up the volume occupied by a fixed amount of water expands, use a mole of water if that measure is one you like. For a couple of hundred years we have been able to calculate  that amount precisely.  Average mean temperature change of the ocean  over the last 100 years?   Warmer of colder?

You might look at EPA data from the United States government to see that sort of thing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level

You might  notice that sea level on the Oregon Coast near where I live has lowered too, but also notice it is not a global pattern.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Level

Share Icon
Share Icon
Reddit Share Icon

This indicator describes how sea level has changed over time. The indicator describes two types of sea level changes: absolute and relative.

  • Figure 1. Global Average Absolute Sea Level Change, 1880–2015Line graph showing the cumulative changes in global average absolute sea level from 1880 to 2015.
    Download Data  Download Image 
     
     

    This graph shows cumulative changes in sea level for the world’s oceans since 1880, based on a combination of long-term tide gauge measurements and recent satellite measurements. This figure shows average absolute sea level change, which refers to the height of the ocean surface, regardless of whether nearby land is rising or falling. Satellite data are based solely on measured sea level, while the long-term tide gauge data include a small correction factor because the size and shape of the oceans are changing slowly over time. (On average, the ocean floor has been gradually sinking since the last Ice Age peak, 20,000 years ago.) The shaded band shows the likely range of values, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.

    Data sources: CSIRO, 2015;3 NOAA, 20164
    Web update: August 2016

  •  
    Download DataDownload ImageKMZ Icon
     
     

     

     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

Sorry, the graphs collapsed on me above, Click th blue and the red button to see more.

Of course the EPA does not publish data for Australia sorry again.

Edited by Tatetopa
added reason for lack of Aus. data

Share this post


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

Sorry, the graphs collapsed on me above, Click th blue and the red button to see more.

Of course the EPA does not publish data for Australia sorry again.

Ok, let's see if the EPA is legit or bent?

NASA says the same thing....

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Or scroll down to Sea Level Rise...

Quote

Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year

So according to them and the EPA, that means a rise of 1.6 inches over the last 10 years or since they quoted 20, it is 3.2 inches sea level rise over the last 20 years.

Or when boiled down, (going by NASA, EPA data for sea levels for the entire planet) that means a 8cm rise in the last 20 years for ALL OCEANS!

Then we compare that with Fort D, again...

QRTA5uB.jpg

Or average 1994-2004, which is 1.06 and compare that with 2019 it is down 0.01 metres, which is a 1cm drop in the last 20 years!

If we go by 2004 onwards it is down 3cm, and up 1cm when 1994 - 2019.

And down 6cm when 1914 to last year is used.

I guess that means half the planet is accelerating in sea level rise and the other half is dropping, maybe Nibaru's orbit is affecting our oceans, lol.

:lol:

Edited by tmcom
Laughs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

Frequently repeating something that is wrong does not make it any more right.

The Earth is not a homogenous perfect sphere.  Sea levels vary from place to place.  Rates of increase (or decrease) vary from place to place.  Thus has it always been, thus will it always be.

Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

Sea level is primarily measured using tide stations and satellite laser altimeters. Tide stations around the globe tell us what is happening at a local level—the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Satellite measurements provide us with the average height of the entire ocean. Taken together, these tools tell us how our ocean sea levels are changing over time.



https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Ok, let's see if the EPA is legit or bent?

NASA says the same thing....

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Or scroll down to Sea Level Rise...

So according to them and the EPA, that means a rise of 1.6 inches over the last 10 years or since they quoted 20, it is 3.2 inches sea level rise over the last 20 years.

Or when boiled down, (going by NASA, EPA data for sea levels for the entire planet) that means a 8cm rise in the last 20 years for ALL OCEANS!

Then we compare that with Fort D, again...

QRTA5uB.jpg

Or average 1994-2004, which is 1.06 and compare that with 2019 it is down 0.01 metres, which is a 1cm drop in the last 20 years!

If we go by 2004 onwards it is down 3cm, and up 1cm when 1994 - 2019.

And down 6cm when 1914 to last year is used.

I guess that means half the planet is accelerating in sea level rise and the other half is dropping, maybe Nibaru's orbit is affecting our oceans, lol.

:lol:

Why are you using a value of 1.05 for 2019?

Why are you using a derived figure for 1999?

Edited by Golden Duck

Share this post


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

Why are you using a value of 1.05 for 2019?

Because that is what it was.

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Why are you using a derived figure for 1999?

Because Fort D, doesn't have one for the year 2000.

Share this post


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

After the last wide spread fire in 2009, there was a Royal Commission, whereby backburning was strongly recommended, with both sides of politics, (more so labor/Greens since they cannot think rationally) doing the opposite, (couldn't be bothered digging up links).

In the US back-firing is a standard fire-fighting technique and has been in use since forever.  I'm surprised it wasn't already being used in Australia.  I am trained as a Firing Boss, but have never had the requisite training fires, so I'm not officially a Firing Boss.

In the US, only Firing Bosses and Crew Bosses are allowed to set back fires.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Because that is what it was.

Because Fort D, doesn't have one for the year 2000.

The monthly average readings for the Ft. Denison gauge for the year 2000 are:

January     1.039

February     0.835

March     0.926

April     1.024

May     1.068

June     0.955

July     0.998

August     0.945

September     0.961

October     0.989

November     0.878

December     1.048

Yearly Average:  0.972.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Finally some truth, yes, Oklahoma has increased rainfall, or moisture, which decreases temperatures, hence the worldwide evidence of decreasing temperatures, so the climate is changing but it is not getting hotter.

Since 1980, Oklahoma precip (includes snow) has gone from 32.6 inches to 37.15 inches in 2018.

Since 1980, Oklahoma temps have gone from 59.9F to 60.7F in 2019.

BOTH increased.

During a storm temperatures drop.  That's where you got the idea that increasing precip means decreasing temps.  But that's not what actually happens at the climate level.  Increasing precip goes with increasing temps:  Hotter wetter, colder drier.  I've explained the mechanism before.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Coal is mostly carbon.  There is a little CO2 in most coal deposits and some methane.  The smelting process, however, requires carbon, not carbon dioxide.  The carbon in coal (C0) is oxidized to CO2 during smelting.

Doug

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I guess that means half the planet is accelerating in sea level rise and the other half is dropping, maybe Nibaru's orbit is affecting our oceans, lol.

Once again, you guess wrong.  You are letting your desire to ridicule overpower your logical brain.

Tmcom, if you look at the chart of the continental US , Alaska and Hawaii you will notice that sea level rise or fall is different in different places along the US. coast.

I am not trying to defend climate change or deny it at this point.  

What I am telling you is that the logic you bring to analysis of the problem is faulty if you assume ocean level is the same all over the globe as measured by tide gauges..  It is not.  Rotation of the earth would be one large factor that would refute your argument.  Water piles up at the equator.  Winds, currents, and temperature also affect areas of the seas differently.  Add to that fact that coastal regions may be rising or falling due to movement of plates, land rebounding after glaciation etc.

You list your records of sea level at Fort Denison and I have no doubt that they are true.  When you try to extrapolate that to the entire globe you run into trouble.  Sea level does not behave the same on all coastal tide gauges.

You are not a good advocate for your point of view because your logic is flawed and it makes your case far less believable.  Ridicule does not help a lot either.

 No matter how often you recite the Ft. Denison tide gauge or how large you print the script, it is not enough data  to characterize conditions around the globe.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 2/9/2020 at 3:27 AM, tmcom said:

Or come up with demented views to cover their disorders, like sea levels are rising except the Pacific Ocean!

You have confused something here.  Sea levels are rising in the Pacific, too.  San Francisco Bay, for example.  Sea level can remain more-or-less constant in a dry area where salt content of the water is increasing.  Does this sound like Australia?

Sea levels rise at different rates in different parts of the world, depending on things like how much the salt water is being diluted y things like ice melt and rainfall.  Also, water temperature affects the sea level as warm water is less dense, so floats higher.

The world's oceans differ in height by as much as 60 feet.

Doug

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Walt' E. Kurtz

Irrational. isn't it funny when People put their heads in the sand and ignore sientific facts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So if anyone says that Sydney Harbor is dropping, while this ocean which almost covers half of our planet, when viewed from space, is rising, yeah, they have serious psychological problems.

Once again you have made up your own facts.  Sea levels in Sydney Harbor are rising.  Not very fast, to be sure, but still rising.  The rate is 0.103 meters per century, averaged from 1914 to present.

World-wide, the average rate of rise is 1 foot (0.3048 m) per century.  Differing water densities explain the difference.

I think you need to re-take high school physics.

Doug

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
6 hours ago, tmcom said:

Because that is what it was.

That's the chosen observation.  Why that one specifically?

6 hours ago, tmcom said:

Because Fort D, doesn't have one for the year 2000.

Fort Denison doesn't have a reading for year 2000? There are about 12 you could choose from.

You don't know where Fitzhenry got those figures do you?

Edited by Golden Duck

Share this post


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

Once again, you guess wrong.  You are letting your desire to ridicule overpower your logical brain.

Tmcom, if you look at the chart of the continental US , Alaska and Hawaii you will notice that sea level rise or fall is different in different places along the US. coast.

I am not trying to defend climate change or deny it at this point.  

What I am telling you is that the logic you bring to analysis of the problem is faulty if you assume ocean level is the same all over the globe as measured by tide gauges..  It is not.  Rotation of the earth would be one large factor that would refute your argument.  Water piles up at the equator.  Winds, currents, and temperature also affect areas of the seas differently.  Add to that fact that coastal regions may be rising or falling due to movement of plates, land rebounding after glaciation etc.

You list your records of sea level at Fort Denison and I have no doubt that they are true.  When you try to extrapolate that to the entire globe you run into trouble.  Sea level does not behave the same on all coastal tide gauges.

You are not a good advocate for your point of view because your logic is flawed and it makes your case far less believable.  Ridicule does not help a lot either.

 No matter how often you recite the Ft. Denison tide gauge or how large you print the script, it is not enough data  to characterize conditions around the globe.

And l have done an image conparision around the globe, (as others have done) with no or very little difference, certainly not almost 10 cm

And Californa's coastline over the last 100 years shows very little change, l can go on and on, but if you want to believe this crap then l won't stop you.

And l used big words, since it never seems to sink in here.

5 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

You have confused something here.  Sea levels are rising in the Pacific, too.  San Francisco Bay, for example.  Sea level can remain more-or-less constant in a dry area where salt content of the water is increasing.  Does this sound like Australia?

Sea levels rise at different rates in different parts of the world, depending on things like how much the salt water is being diluted y things like ice melt and rainfall.  Also, water temperature affects the sea level as warm water is less dense, so floats higher.

The world's oceans differ in height by as much as 60 feet.

Doug

And Fort D, has been averaged from a year up to 10, and tallys with sea level guages in the Pacific island regions, so regardless of how much you try to wriggle your way out of this, it covers the Pacific!

5 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Once again you have made up your own facts.  Sea levels in Sydney Harbor are rising.  Not very fast, to be sure, but still rising.  The rate is 0.103 meters per century, averaged from 1914 to present.

World-wide, the average rate of rise is 1 foot (0.3048 m) per century.  Differing water densities explain the difference.

I think you need to re-take high school physics.

Doug

And once again, you put the blinkers on, sea levels are dropping in Sydney H, if taken from the year 1914, and slightly rising if the right year for a start date is picked, (made up your own facts in other words).

Yeah, you need an reeducation!

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

That's the chosen observation.  Why that one specifically?

Fort Denison doesn't have a reading for year 2000? There are about 12 you could choose from.

You don't know where Fitzhenry got those figures do you?

Because NASA and the other one used the last 20 years of supposed sea levels rising twice as fast as previously.

I would say he got it from the data sets from its sea level gauge.

And the BOM, l would rather not say!

^_^

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
2 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Because NASA and the other one used the last 20 years of supposed sea levels rising twice as fast as previously.

I would say he got it from the data sets from its sea level gauge.

And the BOM, l would rather not say!

Fitzhenry is cherry-picking the BOM data.  There definitely is data for the years 1999 and 2000.  I'm not sure why you say there isn't.

Share this post


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

And Fort D, has been averaged from a year up to 10, and tallys with sea level guages in the Pacific island regions, so regardless of how much you try to wriggle your way out of this, it covers the Pacific!

The gauges on Fiji (There are two.) are located on soft sediment and are slowly settling.  Their readings are not accurate and even if they were, they show rising sea levels.  They don't support your claims.  There are a number of tide gauges in that area that show about the same thing as Sydney Harbor:  sea level rise of 0.103m/century.

The farther one gets from Australia, the greater the sea level rise.  The world average is about one foot per century, three times your rate.

 

22 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And l have done an image conparision around the globe, (as others have done) with no or very little difference, certainly not almost 10 cm

I can see mismatches in your pictures.  Whoever did them wasn't very good at remote sensing.

Why don't you do a full-scale write-up of your photo study and submit it to a professional publication?  I suggest you get some help with the writing as you will stand a better chance of getting published if you write in a scientific format.

22 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And once again, you put the blinkers on, sea levels are dropping in Sydney H, if taken from the year 1914, and slightly rising if the right year for a start date is picked, (made up your own facts in other words).

You don't get to ignore data.  If you have the data and choose not to use it, you must explain why.  I used ALL available data, including the partial year of 1914.  There are four gaps in the data, one about a year long, one two months long and two one-month gaps.  As they are in the mid-parts of the dataset, I don't think they had much effect on the averages.

Could you explain why I could find that data for 2000 so easily and you couldn't?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
37 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And l have done an image conparision around the globe, (as others have done) with no or very little difference, certainly not almost 10 cm

And Californa's coastline over the last 100 years shows very little change, l can go on and on, but if you want to believe this crap then l won't stop you.

And l used big words, since it never seems to sink in here.

It may be obvious to you but it is not to me,  Why do you think image comparisons are reliable data?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.