Help with flat earth facts and English language.

[tcmtech]

That's a whole different issue....

I'm seeing it as a larger agenda strategy to disprove the function of democracy and freedom of choice and true scientific process by taking advantage of the inherent weakness of group agreement governance by poisoning the concept with outright stupidity willful or otherwise until it breaks down and ceases to function.

Majority rule doesn't work when the majority are wilful morons.

 

[DerStrom8]

I'm seeing it as a larger agenda strategy to disprove the function of democracy and freedom of choice and true scientific process by taking advantage of the inherent weakness of group agreement governance by poisoning the concept with outright stupidity willful or otherwise until it breaks down and ceases to function.

Majority rule doesn't work when the majority are wilful morons.

In my experience that seems to be a common misconception, but I won't get into that here. We should probably try to back off the religious and political aspects of this discussion (as much as they play a role) if we want to keep the thread open.

 

[tcmtech]

In my experience that seems to be a common misconception, but I won't get into that here. We should probably try to back off the religious and political aspects of this discussion (as much as they play a role) if we want to keep the thread open.

I find it quite relevant being that scientific consensus and law are based on the rule of having enough people confirm the same findings through enough other assumed to be truths it makes something else true.

If you can get enough people to agree to a new data interpretation (even if it's wrong) it overrides an old one. It's what we have been doing with the scientific process since day one, haven't we?

Its why we as individuals don't always argue against others individual personal superstitions and easily disprovable by scientific process beliefs simply because the end result isn't worth the fight even if we are in fact right.

My mom used to claim that the Big Dipper star constellation held water and when it rained it was because it had tipped over. It's stupid because of the huge amount of absurd mental gymnastics, false logic an irrational reasoning plus utter denial of reality it took to make out the reasoning but given that when it rains we couldn't see the stars, because of cloud cover, there was no direct personally observable proof that her claim was not true and that how the politics of tainting the well of knowledge with stupidity works.

Dump enough stupidity down the well of knowledge and eventually it becomes well of stupidity diluted with a tiny bit of real fact but not enough to matter.

 

[large_ghostman]

Start at the beginning.



It would be good if you cited a source showing land plants prefer CO2 in liquid form. In the meantime, here is a link that shows how leaves inhale CO2 and exhale O2 through their leaf stomata https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stomata . You are ignorant of the fact that the warming oceans are releasing CO2, not accepting it. The increase of CO2 is largly caused by the Earth's warming, not man made causes. Warmer water does not hold as much CO2 as cold water does. That includes vast amounts of vegetative impregnated land (peat) in Siberia and other northern land masses.



What solar influence? Ozone protects from UV radiation. What does ozone have to do with CO2?



I never mentioned where CO2 comes from. I said that CO2 is swamped by a more insulating gas, specifically water vapor. Other gases like methane are more potent but much more scarce.



What does the above paragraph have to do with the cause of climate change? What does the food chain have to do with climate change?



Cutting back on CO2 emissions will not help for the reasons already stated. The small amount of CO2 in the air is not causing global warming. If you can control the solar cycle, and reduce the amount of solar wind emanating from the Sun, then you could do it. But, be careful of unintended consequences. Fortunately, I don't know of any mortal being who can do that.



You have to know why before you can know how. The right thing to do is to not try to change things for the purpose of climate change. Instead, just cope with what is happening, while knowing that you cannot change global warming. Global warming is not necessarily bad. After all, we would not want most of the northern hemisphere covered in a glacier, would we?

Ratch

Not a good topic to pick me up on.... I know how transporation works thanks, the problem with it is the stomata have to be open and that requires a fairly narrow band of humidity and temperature. As for bio availability via leaf or root..... Take your pick of studies, but before i supply one consider the following.

Many aquarium keepers add CO2 to the aquarium, it forms carbonic acid, most the plants in the aquarium are actually bog plants. While not really designed to live submerged all the time, they do ok mostly.

Your reference regarding leaf and root preference
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1971.tb01436.x

This one a bit tricky, it looked at inhibitors to CO2 up[take in roots, but does give you the mechanisms. Note all these methods work even when stomata of leaves are closed like say in very hot conditions.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01394749

Interesting one on rice and Co2 root uptake, note rice is one the few plants to take it up as a gas at root level, its also a transport oddball.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00380768.1982.10432389

This one the abstract is a bit misleading, if you want to read the whole thing shout me, but in a nutshell.......CO2 uptake by roots in willow trees makes then grow much faster than via leaves, its also more common than previously known..

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1985.tb01689.x

Right so thats the first one squashed i think you would agree?

What solar influence? Ozone protects from UV radiation. What does ozone have to do with CO2?

Ermm not sure how to answer this, its alot like asking what has water got to do with getting wet! I dont know but maybe you should start here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0269749189901668

Or try wikipedia, many people are more comfortable with wikipedia than scientific journals, its not always as accurate but it might ease you in a bit.

The role of CO2 directly affecting Ozone is via coupled reaction with mainly HCFL gases and anything with a Chlorine hanging off the molecule, getting a non book ref is a bit harder and they are pay walled, I will come back with a mechanistic reference showing how CO2 is not only a green house gas but actually enhances depletion of Ozone (not the same thing!)..

I never mentioned where CO2 comes from. I said that CO2 is swamped by a more insulating gas, specifically water vapor. Other gases like methane are more potent but much more scarce.

Erm as the above papers show, CO2 and water or water vapor produce Carbonic acid, water vapor actually helps solvate the process. Mitchell 1979 as ref, seeing as you havnt referenced anything but wikipedia i am less inclined to look for decent surces for you, when you return comment use a decent peer reviewed source please.

What does the above paragraph have to do with the cause of climate change? What does the food chain have to do with climate change?

Direcctly nothing, indirectly everything, 40 years ago or whenever they planned the barrier, was done because of 'new at the time' research into climate change, the basic models even then showed that increases in certain gases would lead to a warming and rising of sea levels.....Not sure if you really dont get what was written or are simply trolling here.

Cutting back on CO2 emissions will not help for the reasons already stated. The small amount of CO2 in the air is not causing global warming. If you can control the solar cycle, and reduce the amount of solar wind emanating from the Sun, then you could do it. But, be careful of unintended consequences. Fortunately, I don't know of any mortal being who can do that.

I kind of argued against CO2 being the main focus myself, but to suggest the only way is solar wind......How about increasing or replacing the natural carbon sinks like rain forest?? Or you seriously telling me solar winds are the main problem and we are doomed whatever we do??? If so its time to go by some tinfoil.

You have to know why before you can know how. The right thing to do is to not try to change things for the purpose of climate change. Instead, just cope with what is happening, while knowing that you cannot change global warming. Global warming is not necessarily bad. After all, we would not want most of the northern hemisphere covered in a glacier, would we?

Just cope with it, not really a bad thing.......

Ok i want a decent reference for that please. or go sit with the OU guys

 

[large_ghostman]

I calculate that the surface is 2,23517E-8 feet lower at one foot away from a spot on the round 4000 mile radius Earth. At 1 mile, the surface drops 0.66 feet. At 10 miles, the surface drops 66 feet. Most large ships are not directly visible 15 miles out to sea.

Ratch

You sure you dont mean it drops 6 feet?

 

[large_ghostman]

IF every person on the planet managed to half their carbon footprint then we'd be OK until the population doubles near the end of the century. The problem is too many humans and nobody is addressing that problem. Even China recently dropped it's one child policy.

Mike.

Aus had a good go recently with that Flu!! I am still suffering from the effects 5 weeks later! Yeah dont tel me out there people took two paracetamol and only had an hour off work lol, hit me like a train but no one else in the family got it! Like man flu but with teeth. Population crashes will happen and pretty soon, we had a program recently, a kind of documentary called contagion, i liked it because they did a coutry wide experiment, they advertized it on social media and so got a huge number of people to take part.

They used peoples mobile phones and an app, the idea was to see how a deadly flu virus would spread in the UK. very scary program worth watching. Real experiment and fascinating

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p059y0p1

 

[large_ghostman]

There are other aspects of the arguments as well like that the earth is not a perfect smooth sphere either but has widely varying changes in relative elevations that skew the working perceptions of field of view and distance for any give area and immediate location.

Because of that reality the theoretical concept of say ~ 8 inches of perceive elevation drop per mile does not work everywhere because there are many locations where there is a far greater local ground plane elevation change and thusly why if you stand at one point you may be able to see for 10's or even a 100+ miles to the local horizon.

It's the same local effects, micro Vs macro resolution, falcy the environmentalists use to justify much of their arguments. I have (or I really believe I have) XYZ in excess quantities by my local perceptions therefore it must be like that everywhere else and that makes it everyone's problem and everyone should be doing something to make my local conditions fit unrealistically idealistic expectations set by me so that I will be happy.

TCM your never gonna be happy, your the kind of guy you find sitting at the roadside crying. When asked why your crying you hold up a wage packet and announce you found this unopened wage packet. Asked why the tears you explain although it contains $500 cash....look at all the tax that was paid

 

[JimB]

You sure you dont mean it drops 6 feet?

No, he means 66 feet.

However, I just did a quick and dirty calculation and made it 132 feet.
Which is twice the figure which Ratch gave.

Ratch is usually spot on with his mathematicals, why are we off by a factor of 2 ?
(I used an earth radius of 4000 miles).

JimB

 

[tcmtech]

Ok i want a decent reference for that please. or go sit with the OU guys

Okay? How many years have you been doing research on climate change and to what range and limits of all factors and contributors to it and how well do your own formal credential stack up against those who have been doing it with as much pasin a dedication as you have now but have been at it since before you were born?

You continually dismiss others points, references and general work work while uplifting your own despite it being easily torn down by the very things you continue to wilfully dismiss. That looks pretty flat earther OU conspiracy theory like to anyone who has worked on the topic for a long time.

We all know you feel passionately about it but passion doesn't make you and expert, especially when it requires you to dismiss other well known and understood data and other obvious large scale issue that are equally in play.

TCM your never gonna be happy, your the kind of guy you find sitting at the roadside crying. When asked why your crying you hold up a wage packet and announce you found this unopened wage packet. Asked why the tears you explain although it contains $500 cash....look at all the tax that was paid

Who says I am not happy? You? You don't know anything about me as a real person and what does your false claims of who I am do for the credibility of you?

Your falling into the SJW personal imaginations equal reality mentality trap real fast there kid and there's no place in real impartial objective science for that and you should know better by now. Especially if it's your way of self justifying dismissing other data points because they undermine the credibility of your basic beliefs.

If you want to make your points then stand your ground with solid unbiased confirmable scientific fact and leave the wild imagined personal speculations an false claims of others reality out of it because all they do is discredit you and not anyone else.

When you have to make it personal to detract from your science not standing up to scrutiny that doesn't make you a winner at any level. You may know everything you know but that doesn't mean you know everything by a long shot.

BTW, I own millions of shares of stock plus other things that are doing well and havent had to work a normal job for several years, so your speculations of me being poor and crying about taxes or whatever really don't stand up in this. Odds are the limit on one of my credit cards alone is more than you make in a few years.

 

[large_ghostman]

No, he means 66 feet.

However, I just did a quick and dirty calculation and made it 132 feet.
Which is twice the figure which Ratch gave.

Ratch is usually spot on with his mathematicals, why are we off by a factor of 2 ?
(I used an earth radius of 4000 miles).

JimB

Dunno time to get my glasses Jim, let me check something first........

Lets agree on the radius i am happy with 4000 myself.
Actually what calculator you using? I ask because mine has those stupid modes on, if we both get 2 X out but different ways, maybe the calculator is set the wrong way? I did it again and also got 132!! So we doing something wrong somewhere!

 

[large_ghostman]

Okay? How many years have you been doing research on climate change and to what range and limits of all factors and contributors to it and how well do your own formal credential stack up against those who have been doing it with as much pasin a dedication as you have now but have been at it since before you were born?

You continually dismiss others points, references and general work work while uplifting your own despite it being easily torn down by the very things you continue to wilfully dismiss. That looks pretty flat earther OU conspiracy theory like to anyone who has worked on the topic for a long time.

We all know you feel passionately about it but passion doesn't make you and expert, especially when it requires you to dismiss other well known and understood data and other obvious large scale issue that are equally in play.




Who says I am not happy? You? You don't know anything about me as a real person and what does your false claims of who I am do for the credibility of you?

Your falling into the SJW personal imaginations equal reality mentality trap real fast there kid and there's no place in real impartial objective science for that and you should know better by now. Especially if it's your way of self justifying dismissing other data points because they undermine the credibility of your basic beliefs.

If you want to make your points then stand your ground with solid unbiased confirmable scientific fact and leave the wild imagined personal speculations an false claims of others reality out of it because all they do is discredit you and not anyone else.

When you have to make it personal to detract from your science not standing up to scrutiny that doesn't make you a winner at any level. You may know everything you know but that doesn't mean you know everything by a long shot.

Hush a min, i am trying to sort out a mathematical problem, not deal with your crisis over someone else s pay packet and tax problems

 

[large_ghostman]

Nope i am still getting wrong answers!! Going to find a nice normal simple calculator

 

[tcmtech]

Hush a min, i am trying to sort out a mathematical problem, not deal with your crisis over someone else s pay packet and tax problems

Do you really want to go there? It really doesn't help your credibility in anything you say or claim on this forum or topic.

 

[large_ghostman]

Do you really want to go there? It really doesn't help your credibility in anything you say or claim on this forum or topic.

You had a bang on the head? what credibility??? i cant loose what i dont have grasshopper

 

[tcmtech]

You had a bang on the head? what credibility??? i cant loose what i dont have grasshopper

Exactly and getting lippy about it doesnt help you peer group standing or credibility of your claims in our debate either.

BTW,

"The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an average curvature of 7.98 inches per mile or approximately 8 inches per mile (squared)."

https://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html

 

[large_ghostman]

Exactly and getting lippy about it doesnt help you peer group standing either.

BTW,

"The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an average curvature of 7.98 inches per mile or approximately 8 inches per mile (squared)."

https://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html

Well kinda depends, but 4000 i a nice round number and a few feet isnt going to explain how Jim and I were out by a factor of 2 in different directions. As for peer group.... Your being a tad presumptuous to assume your in my peer group.

 

[DerStrom8]

tcm & LG, let it go. If you don't stop arguing with one another you will be removed from this thread.

 

[large_ghostman]

tcm & LG, let it go. If you don't stop arguing with one another you will be removed from this thread.

Matt its banter seriously, you known me long enough to know when i am playing and going for the throat . Just trying to make a grumpy old lonely man smile while he counts his $ sitting on a porch with his shotgun on his lap in dungarees.

Nothing is derailed, it wasnt a serious thread to begin with. But it did spin the weekend counter

 

[DerStrom8]

Matt its banter seriously, you known me long enough to know when i am playing and going for the throat . Just trying to make a grumpy old lonely man smile while he counts his $ sitting on a porch with his shotgun on his lap in dungarees.

Nothing is derailed, it wasnt a serious thread to begin with. But it did spin the weekend counter

I know it's banter but it is not contributing anything to this thread. You can banter over PM if you both agree to, but leave it off the open forum please.

Thanks,
Matt

 

[large_ghostman]

Oh ok, we will go to pm and let this serious thread continue without interruption. No need to thank us for giving ETO some exposure over the weekend, back to work TCM we are not needed apparently on week days.