Help with flat earth facts and English language.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a meter stick (yard stick if you are in a backwards country). I can measure 1m with an error of about +/-1mm. (most of a 1/16 inch) [insert snide comment about old world measurements]

With in my measurement error, (+/- something), the earth is both flat and round.
 
DerStrom8 said:
I'm sad to say my own father also doesn't believe climate change is real.
Click to expand...

A lot of the issue is in how it's presented.

As is with the question, "Do you believe in climate change?" Its highly loaded question just like, "Have yo stop beating your wife and kids yet?" to where you only have two answers and neither is a accurate presentation of what you or anyone may know and to what agenda or realistic beliefs they follow.

If you answer 'yes', which any rational objectively minded scientifically informed person would because they know that this a dynamic living planet where the climate has never stopped changing and never will, it implies you agree with ath AGW crowd even if you are dead set against every single thing they say and stand for, and if you answer 'no' then you are implying you are so uninformed about basic science that you know nothing about reality or the planet we live on which is also not the least bit accurate or true either.

Its basic word play tactics to force everyone into two camps where either you're against the actions of all humans or you know nothing about reality and are in total denial of one's own existence even if you utterly disagree with the premises and implications of both.
 

Mine says the same too just as that nearby big lake where I can see line of site for near 3 miles however that one flight back from overseas a few years ago where we were at ~45,000 - 48,000 feet the pilot pointed out, as we were at the mid point across the atlantic, that those with reasonable eyesight can see the curvature of the planet and I have to say that from that perspective yes, you can see it's a slightly curved horizon!
 
Climate change is a red herring question. Yes the climate is changing and thats just simple fact, but the trouble is people start arguing over why and the causes. The whole question of climate change is not relevant, it dosnt matter if its changing because of man or because of nature, because we have destroyed so much rain forest and other areas, the earth has no way to absorb the gases that cause climate change. So if you think its man or a natural cycle it makes no difference, you cant run from the fact things are going to get bad because we took away the single most effective way of dealing with climate change.

Anyone thats been to Scotland can tell you the world is a long way from flat!! Belgium is pretty flat though. Bottom of my drive is flat, the top of my drive is flat, the bit between is a long way from flat!
 
From late 1500's on sailors new it.
Hence the term Hull Down from that era describing a vessel that was over the horizon and was visible by sail and masts only.
How about the many who do not realize the speed we are traveling, i.e. to them the sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west.
Max.
 
tcmtech said:
Do you believe in climate change?
Click to expand...
For many people; I don not believe in man made climate change because I do not believe any government can force me to have my old car repaired. (emission testing)
In the farming country, they fly plains into clouds to "seed" clouds to get more rain. But man can not effect climate because only God can change climate.
 
And Jack Frost, dont forget that dude
 
I thought they flew planes into clouds so pilots could take a leak in private. Learn something new every day
 

Not really, as long as both sides have strong supporting data that disproves the others more than likely the real answer is some place in the middle. Beyond that it just a matter who is going to get the blame for the negatives that are provable and whos trying to hide the positives because they detract from their agenda and skewed narratives they use to support them.

In fact at the moment there is a legitimate Climate Change trial going on with environmentalists VS big oil and the judge has squarely called out the environmentalists several times for questionable data presentations and worse actions, even though its a liberal judge that by all standard reasoning should be siding with them not calling them out.

It also looks suspicious at this point that the MSM has totally dropped coverage since that happened despite being all over it months ago when they were claiming that big oil and all deniers were going to be 'shut down by a real facts and data being reviewed by a real judge' once and for all.

https://grist.org/article/climate-change-will-have-its-scopes-monkey-trial-this-week/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4128955/danielle-smith-climate-change-lawsuit/

https://freebeacon.com/issues/climate-change-trial-starts-rough-footing-environmentalists/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...cc-findings-in-landmark-climate-change-trial/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-trial-california_us_5ab53d0ce4b054d118e2a0d9

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/04/02/climate-change-wackos-exposed-california-court/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-suit-heads-to-trial/?utm_term=.9445ee156217

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...te-science-lawsuit-san-francisco-sues-chevron


Lots of other info from lots of sources out there and the big bad oil companies are playing by the rules whereas the environmentalist and their supporters are pretty much showing that they are likely not.

Anyone can believe what they want but if your siding with those who constantly get called out for scams and falsifying data (and have been for several decades now) are you really supporting the likely true facts and best interests for humankind and this planet both in the present and future?


.
 

The climate is changing. It is always changing. Remember when ice covered most of the northern hemisphere a few thousand years ago? Remember the Little Ice Age **broken link removed** Remember when Europe could grow grapes much further north than they can now?

What causes Earth temperature changes? When I sit in my car on a sunny day with the windows closed, the car becomes very warm. Since I exhale CO2, it could be said that CO2 is the cause. But the car still becomes warm even when I am not inside. I notice that the temperature does not rise above the ambient temperature when the sun roof is rolled back. I conclude that the cause of temperature rise in my car and a greenhouse is lack of convection. Besides, greenhouse plants consume CO2.

CO2 is a thermal insulating gas. The slang term for this property is "greenhouse gas". The percentage of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is 0.04%. The percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere varies from zero % in the Gobi Desert to 4% over the warm tropical oceans. Using an average of 2%, we can assume that the water vapor is 40 to 60 times more prevalent than CO2. The kicker here is that water vapor is a better thermal insulator than CO2, and is far more prevalent. In other words, CO2 is an insignificant factor compared to water vapor. Good luck to those who want to reduce water vapor in the air. CO2 is an essential plant requirement, not an atmospheric pollutant

So what is causing atmosphere temperature changes? The Sun spews out an enormous amount of charged particles called the solar wind. This can observed as Northern or Southern Lights. The cosmos puts out high energy particles call cosmic rays. They can be observed in a cloud chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber . The cosmic rays help the water vapor condense into clouds, which in turn, shield the earth from the thermal effects of the sun. The solar wind pushes away the cosmic rays, thereby causing fewer clouds to form. The solar wind intensity is cyclic, and so are the thermal effects. The effects are delayed by thermal equilibrium. So, global warming does not depend on CO2, but instead on the solar cycle https://www.google.com/search?q=sol.....69i57j0l5.4377j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 . The "industrial" Ice Age thousands of years ago did not have or need large amounts CO2 to change.

So why is there a controversy? The reason is $$$. Climate change has put a lot of dinners on the table for a lot of people. Think of the government grants, endowed chairs at the colleges and universities, and other financial endowments. But, perhaps more, think of the bureaucracy and rule over people's lives that government likes to do. So, look at the facts and figures and determine for yourself what the situation is. What a shame we are wasting so many financial resources.

Ratch
 

I believe we have some influences but it goes both ways. There are a lot of places on this planet where we have made vast improvements to things (they never get talked about though) and other where we have made terrible mistakes in the past (yet are still held as presently ongoing actions).

I believe in vehicle emissions standards and the reformulation of fuel up to the Tier 2 levels that reduced known and proven vehicle emissions by 95+% but see everything past that as pure money and power grabbing scam work.

I believe that some locations and situations need further improvement and control in their specific instances but that they do not represent the whole of everyone and everything by a long shot.

I believe that modern farming practices feed more people than ever on less land than ever with the least amount of fuel and energy used than ever (carbon sinking effects are likely huge too) and it's still improving, but that nobody on the environmentalists side wants to talk about that because it dispels their natives and agendas on too many levels.

I believe that in every developed nation and region of the world and in every major city, except for a few isolated places where the combination of area specific geographical and socio political resource mismanagement problems are in heavy play, air and general environmental surroundings quality has been improving for over a century, but since that does not fit certain environmentalists agendas nobody wants to address the bigger picture on that topic either.

I believe that we can continue to make things better but that I have zero responsibility to pay for others agendas that do not affect my life and that do not agree with my own and vice versa. You want it you figure out how to pay for and implement it without my money and work being that's what I am doing with my own interests and agendas. Live and let live socio environmental stewardship based on the simple principle of if it affects you you deal with it and if it affects me I will deal with it and if it affects both of us the we can work together but until then, leave me the hell alone because I'm giving you that courtesy as is.

Be open, be honest and be fair because if you're not life will blow that up in your face at some point and in a way you likely won't walk away from too many times.
 
Last edited:


New data is showing that the ~ 400 PPM value is a peak point number not a year round all encompassing constant as some want to claim it to be rather like the hottest days of summer is not representative of the rest of the days of the year. One more major data talking point manipulation/misrepresentation that environmentalists have been caught lying about.

Fact is, peak Northern Hemisphere highs in the winter do hit the ~ 400 PPM value but by late summer they are in most areas down around 350 and even lower PPM values over much of the planet. Nobody wants to talk about that inconvenient fact either because it discredits their narratives and agenda as well.



Rather like how the Ozone hole was a huge issue, until it leaked out that it disappears for 8 - 9 months out of the year every year like its a predictable natural seasonal effect ( Coincidentally, northern hemisphere O3 levels go up while the southern go down) and has since the first global monitoring of O3 levels was started decades ago.
 
There is so much scientifically and technically wrong I wouldnt know exactly where to start. You miss important facts like CO2 and its high solubility in water, plants infact prefer CO2 in liquid form at the roots(Carbonic acid). Most green plant matter is in fact in the oceans now, so taking up CO2 via the Ocean is not good, it alters the acidity.

You also skip over the effect that a decent layer of Ozone would do as protection from solar influence, and skip the bit where CO2 depletes this. Dont get hung up on where CO2 comes from, its one of a number of gases that are a problem, the problem isnt so much with have X amount them, rather the problem is we have X amount more than the planet can cope with. Anything done to reduce amounts helps, but wont solve it, yes i am a environmentalist to some degree but i live a long way from stupidvill.

If you go back some 40 odd years there is a program i tracked down on the Thames barrier before it was built, funny thing is they predicted floods etc back then. Its why they got the money to build the barrier, but things have gone past the predictions and the situation is worse. You cant look at climate change on its own, its like looking at a food chain, really you need to look at the entire food web and not a single chain.

I dont honestly know how much we can now mitigate the damage, but that dosnt mean we shouldnt try. First thing would be to reduce the amount of natural rain forest we fell, cutting back emissions is a small step but its worth doing.

As i said there is no point arguing the why, what really matters is how its puts right. The single biggest help would be to cut waste of energy to the bone. Then instead of just flushing **** down a sewer maybe use that to make a gas to power a generator, feed the gas from that into water and a buffer and feed via rootstock to lock it up........ But there is always people who will insist that is a light at the end of the tunnel and not a train coming.
 

Oh, the flat-earther's have an answer for that already.
Apparently, the plane windows are manufactured to make it look that way.
SMH.
 
Ok thats me out, I cant begin to argue hand picked points and skewed views. your entitled to an opinion, but i cant discuss a scientific topic like climate change if you focus on one small part. I notice many times you mention not paying for others agendas or mistakes. It might help to look at it this way.....

Your in a burning tower of ten people, the fire brigade wont come up for less than $100, you say heres my $10 and i am not paying cent more because it isnt fair and i shouldnt have to. You might have $1000 in your pocket, but i bet if everyone else in that building only has $9, your going to die with a pocket full of money.
 
Oh and yes we have broken a Golden rule..........

No global warming speak, yes i am as much to blame as anyone, but honestly lets stop before the inevitable conclusion and spiral into plain stupidity. better locked and forgotten and if the mods like they can delete everything i said on it.

I have beliefs, but i am not going to argue them out, my time is better spent looking at how we can solve some the problems we have, might not get anywhere, but personally that wont stop me trying.
 
Little Ghostman said:
I dont honestly know how much we can now mitigate the damage, but that dosnt mean we shouldnt try. First thing would be to reduce the amount of natural rain forest we fell, cutting back emissions is a small step but its worth doing.
Click to expand...

We are.

Much of the developed world is now planting more trees than they are using and that rate of replenishment is growing.

https://www.tentree.com/blogs/posts/fact-check-are-there-really-more-trees-today-than-100-years-ago

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/w...-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...han-thought/2C0o8JJKqdGn6MAzsf3AOI/story.html

Beyond that there is the who and where aspects too few want to acknowledge in the bigger picture and numbers game. Most of the developed world is now not the primary sources of the problem being they are reaching a forestation balance or even gaining value where, like the US many are actually starting to return farmland to forest since the land is no longer needed for farming purposes.

It's the still poor undeveloped countries that are who need to be getting the biggest scrutiny and blame for current issues at his point.

Recleaning your already clean yard doesn't really help your dirty neighbors yard if its their garbage being blown all over the neighborhood.
 
Little Ghostman said:
I notice many times you mention not paying for others agendas or mistakes. It might help to look at it this way.....
Click to expand...


As I have pointed out many times. I'll pay for yours if you pay for mine but I can guarantee that no matter what bill you come up with for yours, mine will always be equal because I care about my areas problems past and present just as much as you care about yours.

If you don't like that game I 'm not the problem here being that if that seems unfair then it's probably not me that has unrealistic expectations of the value their wants Vs others.

Live and let live because your problems are probably not my problems and my problems are probably not your problems, It's all I am asking for.
 


Developing countries are often ahead of developed countries in many ways. India gets more into space for less money and resources than any other nation. india also turns much of its sewage into natural gas to use as a resource, rather than extract a gas from the earth. Look at CO2 and other notable gases per person for developing countries and lets say developed ones.

Dont blame developing countries for every problem, at the moment many of them are working harder to put things right than most others. They are taking the rubbish the likes of the UK shipped over there, and are extracting the precious metal using green chemistry etc.

Sure they pump alot of noxious gas out, but take the whole view. They are not the worst offenders and in some things are leading the way in green tech. The west is too quick to jump on others, again the UK started the industrial revolution, so in many ways we should take ore responsibility for it, we should certainly be spending more on trying to get solutions than we are. and the tree planting thing.......

Dosnt match what a 200 year old tree consumes compared to 100 1 year old trees.
 
No my point isnt what you think it is, i am sure your generous, but the point is to me it dont matter who pays as long as it gets done. I think maybe you just come across wrong and money focused. Maybe its plain simple wording on the net, without talking to you face to face i cant tell. One day my friend we will chat on the skype thingy, maybe then i might see it different how some of what you put comes across.

I doubt i come across correctly in writing, i write like i think. Thats never gonna end well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RJ45 used as RS485 - why not properly wire-compatible with cat5 cable
Replies
4
Views
3K
Grossel
Google translate suggest "device sheet" or "apparatus sheet" but that cannot be ?
Replies
10
Views
4K
Grossel
Fortran as programing language at university
Replies
9
Views
3K
schmitt trigger
S
P
Just watching "While the rest of us die" and it's very interesting. However,
Replies
15
Views
9K
Kerim
S
How do I motivate myself to study with 100% focus and concentration during covid lockdown?
Replies
5
Views
3K
tvrgeek
T
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…