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 -

Proof that wind and solar are disasters


docyabut2

Recommended Posts

We don nt know what virus is coming out of antarctica ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)

Wish we could control the wind ? by putting a bomb in a tornado or a hurricane?  

Edited by docyabut2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

Wish we could control the wind ? by putting a bomb in a tornado or a hurricane?  

     https://www.axios.com/2019/08/25/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes

President Trump has suggested multiple times to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States, according to sources who have heard the president's private remarks and been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that recorded those comments.

Behind the scenes: During one hurricane briefing at the White House, Trump said, "I got it. I got it. Why don't we nuke them?"

Edited by lightly
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

further on in the link:   

The big picture: Trump didn't invent this idea. The notion that detonating a nuclear bomb over the eye of a hurricane could be used to counteract convection currents dates to the Eisenhower era, when it was floated by a government scientist.

  • The idea keeps resurfacing in the public even though scientists agree it won't work. The myth has been so persistent that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. government agency that predicts changes in weather and the oceans, published an online fact sheet for the public under the heading "Tropical Cyclone Myths Page."
  • The page states: "Apart from the fact that this might not even alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea."

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, as a scientist, I have no problem with people wondering about weird engineering solutions to natural forces.

Bombing a hurricane. Drilling into a volcano to relieve pressure. Capping a volcano to stop eruptions, etc.

It's just a problem when people spew it all over with zero reflection that it's an issue. It's what that lump of tissue inside one's skull is for.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

See, as a scientist, I have no problem with people wondering about weird engineering solutions to natural forces.

Bombing a hurricane. Drilling into a volcano to relieve pressure. Capping a volcano to stop eruptions, etc.

It's just a problem when people spew it all over with zero reflection that it's an issue. It's what that lump of tissue inside one's skull is for.

Capping or drilling a active volcano could be fun. 🤪

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Piney said:

Capping or drilling a active volcano could be fun. 🤪

Ask, and you shall receive.

https://kmt.is/

The Krafla Magma Testbed

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Ask, and you shall receive.

https://kmt.is/

The Krafla Magma Testbed

You can try anything you want in Iceland. Living on the Mid Atlantic Ridge is just asking for trouble. I'll stick with living on cratons. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Piney said:

You can try anything you want in Iceland. Living on the Mid Atlantic Ridge is just asking for trouble. I'll stick with living on cratons

Thanks Piney.  . https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craton

  image.gif.42ba16cea6fdc56511883da16154ce1a.gif

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Piney said:

You can try anything you want in Iceland. Living on the Mid Atlantic Ridge is just asking for trouble. I'll stick with living on cratons. 

You're not radical enough to live on the accreted terranes, maaaan.

*rides skateboard away

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You're not radical enough to live on the accreted terranes, maaaan.

*rides skateboard away

I rode a 350X. The Honda trike that got all the other trikes banned. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You a Baaad motoscooto Piney…born to be wiiiild !     :P

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
28 minutes ago, lightly said:

You a Baaad motoscooto Piney…born to be wiiiild !     :P

My street bike was a 87 Suzuki Intruder you could run faster than.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lightly said:

You a Baaad motoscooto Piney…born to be wiiiild !     :P

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For better or worse, we have seen more "lush" growth in the last 50 years due to carbon increases. Plant life thrives when it goes up. I have a theory that the earth is compensating for the changes humans made to bring balance back. It is not entirely a bad thing but I feel not entirely understood. More plant life = more oxygen and clean air too. 

But that aside, one video that highlights the dangers of solar and wind energy I watched a while ago is this one:

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2024 at 1:56 PM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

No.

The greenhouse effect has always specifically been the extrapolation of the inversely proportional temperature rise at the poles correlating to temperature rises elsewhere. That has always been the reason for this nonsense starting and the theory that has the sheeple panicked as the theory states small rises create ice melts on a biblical proportion. 

It does not. 

Average global temp is determined by dividing the earth into 1000 areas, then determining a weighted average for each area, then averaging the 1000 areas.  It is GLOBAL warming, not POLAR warming.

Yes.  The poles are warming faster and, yes, you can produce an equation that describes how much, but that is not the way global mean temps are determined.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2024 at 6:13 PM, Antigonos said:

You’re arguing with someone who doesn’t believe that Jupiter emits natural radio emissions. Oh yeah, and that Tesla talked to aliens.

Science isn’t exactly his thing.

I am perplexed as to why some people think they know more than the leading scientists in the field.  See that a lot on UM.

 

I admit, I have done much the same thing in a few cases.  Might want to check my facts before I post.

Doug

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

Average global temp is determined by dividing the earth into 1000 areas, then determining a weighted average for each area, then averaging the 1000 areas.  It is GLOBAL warming, not POLAR warming.

Yes.  The poles are warming faster and, yes, you can produce an equation that describes how much, but that is not the way global mean temps are determined.

Doug

That explanation is not what the greenhouse gas premise was. 

It has morphed into heaven knows what, one version of which you are quoting but it was never this because 1.5C as an average would make zero difference!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2024 at 12:42 AM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Sorry, not sorry, to burst your bubble but those 1.5C models, let's just agree that they are a work of fiction, because that's exactly what they are. A 1.5C rise at the equator does not magnify out to a rise in polar temperatures. The climate claims are utter fiction. Go and ACTUALLY read the 'science', it's laughable.

Models predict 1.5C increase in Global surface temperature. Educate yourself, OpenMindedSceptic [sic]

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2024 at 4:33 PM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

That explanation is not what the greenhouse gas premise was. 

It has morphed into heaven knows what, one version of which you are quoting but it was never this because 1.5C as an average would make zero difference!

 

 

It is already making a difference.  But two degrees is more of a concern because that is when we start to feel serious effects.

Doug

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2024 at 1:49 PM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

The lie is that these changes will kill us.

The heat will kill you, not the change in climate.  Most heat deaths are caused by heat stroke.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2024 at 4:33 PM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

That explanation is not what the greenhouse gas premise was. 

If you're going to talk about climate change, you need a way to measure it.  That's the way it is measured.  Temps could go up or down, or remain unchanged and we would still measure them the same way.

That method is used because we have tens of thousands of weather stations in places like New England and Europe and only six in Antarctica.  You have to have a way to add or delete weather stations without if affecting the global average significantly.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

It is already making a difference.  But two degrees is more of a concern because that is when we start to feel serious effects.

Doug

 

1.5, 1.5, 1.5... that's all we've heard. Is it now 2? 

And even then we won't feel the effects because the whole greenhouse effect where the initial models predicted how the heat gets amplified at the poles is... complete nonsense.

And as such, makes a mockery of 1 5 or 2 or when it reaches 2 (because this cycle should naturally do that), then it will be 2.5... 

I just wonder what the tax cost is per 0.5C rise lol and also at what point the people realise the sea levels pose no threat and start to question places like the UN arm called the IPCC (because the UN are so good at helping us all, yes I am being sarcastic) around how they suppress the science to maintain the lie, and then good old NOAA, who would never admit we don't need them as funding would stop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.