Antarctica - A wall of ice?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 01, 2022, 02:01:35 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 01, 2022, 08:05:37 AM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on September 01, 2022, 07:01:11 AM

How do you think they faked the 24hr sunlight not available at 60S but expected at Antarctica during December when this was done?

The same way everything about Antarctica is fake?

I spent three months living and working in Antarctica. Can you give some examples of why you think "everything about Antarctica is fake"?

Quote

Btw, a land covered by ice shouldn't have 24 hours of sunlight. That's not rational.

Why not?

Quote

Rather, whether a flat Earth model or a round Earth, if an area is perpetually cold, it could be because the sun never hits it. Rather than midnight sun or strange 24 hour sunlight, you should actually be seeing perpetual darkness. Given you say that the Earth "wobbles" you might get occasional sunlight around then. But if a mass of ice were hit 24 hours by a sun with an extreme heat of 27 million degrees at its core (though you say this is at a distance, like the other thread where gravity is brought up), though its surface is 10 thousand degrees, pretty soon you have a mass of water not ice.

An area that is in perpetual darkness, has no other sources of heat, and is exposed to the open sky would indeed be cold. It will eventually cool to the temperature of the cosmic background, which is very, very cold - a few degrees above 0 Kelvin.

An area exposed to sunlight will maintain a yearly average temperature that balances the rate it receives heat (typically heat from solar irradiation and geothermal energy are the largest sources) with the rate it loses heat (radiation to space, evaporation of water, and wind and water currents typically dominate). The atmosphere will suppress heat loss by radiation to some extent, so very high elevations tend to be colder than lower elevations, and dry air is less effective than humid air since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, other things equal.

If the average annual temperature of an area is below the freezing point of water, the area will typically be ice covered.

At the poles, the highest angle of incident sunlight is about 23.5°. This means that the amount of solar energy received by a square meter of surface is about 40% as much as it would be if the sun were directly overhead (sin 23.5° = 0.3987), and it is near that relatively high angle only for a short time over a year. For fully half the year, it is zero. In snow and ice-covered Antarctica, much of the solar energy falling on the surface is immediately reflected back to the sky and is not absorbed by the ground. In Antarctica, this is typically about 80%. So the poles receive a diminished amount of solar energy for half a year (80% of which is immediately lost back to space) followed by, once the sun goes down, the sky darkening and the surface radiating heat to space as infrared radiation for the next half year. The average temperature is well below the freezing point of water.

At the polar circles (90° - 23.5° = 66.5° latitude N or S), the sun appears higher in the sky at local noon than it ever gets at the poles, but stays near its maximum altitude only briefly each day. The sun is fully above the horizon for only one day or so a year. It's warmer overall than would be expected at the poles, but still quite cold because, on average, the sun is higher in the sky. Between the polar circles and their respective poles, the length of the 24-hour sunlight periods is traded with the maximum height of the sun, but it stays cold because of the relatively low amount of solar power/area and generally high albedo (reflectance).

At McMurdo (78° S latitude), I recall the last sunset we got for the season was late October. After that the sun circled the sky all day, getting lowest in the sky at local midnight and highest at local noon. A few weeks later I moved to a remote field station (~86° S), and the sun stayed up for the two months we were there, not dipping quite as low or rising quite as high as it did at McMurdo. We were living on a very large sheet of snow-covered ice the entire time, although the temperature did reach 0° C and even a little above a few times late in the season while we were there. By the time we returned to McMurdo at the end of the season, much of the snow on the ground was gone, and mid-day temperatures reached as high as maybe even a balmy 5° C or so several times in the week before departing.

Quote

What actually happened? While you were sleeping during the trip, the crew took the ship into a very large room in another dimension with a fake sun that gives no heat, and pulled you out of it on the way back. As you can see, this makes much more sense than heading to a location that is perpetually sunny yet nothing ever melts. Btw, how did this Porsche keep warm? The South Pole area is supposed to be −18° F during its warmest months and −76° F during its coldest. How does a Porsche somehow keep from turning into a block of ice while cruising about? It doesn't look very insulated.

The name of the place may have been Antarctica, but it was not 90 S. You were not at the South Pole. 

I don't think anyone claimed that the Porsche was at the South Pole.

Gasoline engines produce a lot of waste heat when they run. Some of that heat can be redirected to heat the cabin in typical automobiles. Dunno of this Porsche does that or not, but the windows admit light and items inside absorb much of that light and warm up because of it, but window glass don't pass the infrared radiation emitted by warm matter well, so it's trapped in the interior, which gets warmer than outside (i.e. the greenhouse effect). If it's still too cold, well, they have warm clothing.

Quote

Wherever you were, it wasn't 90 S. Either no sun hits 90 S, and it is even colder than they say (it also has no cold or warm seasons, just perpetual summer) or it has 24 hour sunlight, and any land on 90 S is a paradise (glacial moisture constantly keeping what would otherwise be a desert moist and sunny, a perpetual spring). And that assumption is supplying a round Earth.  In a flat Earth, it is not a given that Antarctica exists at all, and the Earth either ends or continues out into further layers.

It's quite well known that it does get very, very cold at the South Pole during its six months of darkness, even if you hadn't heard that before. Sunlight is too weak at that latitude to provide enough warmth for what you ruminate about. It's still quite cold there, even in the season of 24-hour sunlight.

You either don't have a clue what you're talking about, or do, but are just spewing balderdash for whatever reason.

So this three months. Was any of it during the peak of winter? And did you ever, rather than driving around edge,  drive directly south through the pole  and try to  book a boat on the other side? And continue heading south and see what you see? If not, I can tell you that you can't know anything.

1. You can't know there isn't a completely huge ice wall during the height of brutal winter.
2. You can't know that Antarctica wasn't just a long icy circle around the 60 degree to 75 degree mark, and after that something else closer to 90 degrees
3. You can't know if you are closing in on the southern edge of the Earth, having gone completely around the island or whether you were skirting the northern tip.
4. You can't know if there is an ice wall much further inland.
5. Or if beyond Antarctica, the world extends into other islands.
6. Or if the map of Antarctica really looks more like this



Take a look at the shot I quoted about earlier.


Remember I talked about these lines? And how round Earthers use that you can circle the "globe" as proof that the Earth is round? Oh yes, but a disc is also round, it doesn't mean it is a globe. You're just circling these lines, skimming the very edge of Antarctica.

 So the thing is, we have this random AF trip where James cook nonetheless seems to have missed large portions of water in the center of point A (India to Australia and China) and Point B (between Russia/China/Australia and the Americas).  If he was trying to prove there are no hidden islands, he did a bad job.

If we look at this with the perspective as I said of east being clockwise, then much of this continent hasn't actually been explored. Nor has much of the ocean, since those circles he did look much much different on a flat Earth map, showing just how huge a stretch of ocean there is. I've seen this myself on Google Maps, they have filler texture that seems to account for long strwtches of ocean, but when you check again from other origin points or zoom in, you don't get the same results.



Texture errors abound in the middle of the Pacific. There could be a hidden island as huge as Atlantis or Mu, an actual continent, and we wouldn't know it because our explorers all used assumptions about exploration that might not be so.

You want to know where the ice wall is? You're on it. A wall reaching across the southern part of the world which everyone skirts around and nobody wants to go through. A Porsche? Come back when you drive a boat with skies through one side to another and continue sailing. Any hidden islands would be south of this large wall or in the huge stretches of ocean that we explored in a half-assed manner like Cook.



Someone accused me of not knowing anything about Antarctica beyond what they've read. Pot meet kettle. Most of this world knows that Antarctica looks like this.

 

They know it's cold. They know it has penguins. They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.  They can't tell whether this map is real or just based on assumptions. In other words, if knowing you don't know is wise, and thinking you know is folly, I am a touch more wise, and I will admit that I've not spent 3 months in a Porsche tooling about probably with no idea where to go to test for certain whether or not there's an ice wall. Most of the people disputing flat Earth have literally no concept how the theory works. As proof of this, the military guy who did the green arrow mistakenly thought that what he was pointing to was east when he actually pointed south. If they aren't even sure what they're disputing, how can they disprove it?

And yes, I've slept in a car during the winter. A Porsche can't really hold that many tanks of gasoline in its trunk, and you wouldn't want to be breathing gas fumes, so we are talking about a cozy summer trip of only about 17 below. A blanket, heat on, and probably refilling gas near the bases. Not an arduous drive straight through the middle, involving that you get out and refill the tank in below freezing temperatures. I am reasonably certain that you didn't drive directly through due to the odds of getting stranded away from base. Human fear is a bit more intense than their spirit of adventure. You might have gone inland enough to prove something to yourself, but probably not enough to risk proving whether the Earth is flat or not. Too dangerous.

Why do you insist on commenting on things you know nothing about?
Have you been to Antartica?
Where have you obtained your information that you base your comments on?

Making comments on a subject you know zero about is proof of a feeble mind especially when they totally contradict the known reality.

It’s likely that not one person on this thread has been to Antarctica, therefore all comments are based on third hand accounts from what they have seen read or heard.

I have. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90588.msg2367849#msg2367849

[Re: the post referenced above]

So this three months. Was any of it during the peak of winter? And did you ever, rather than driving around edge,  drive directly south through the pole  and try to  book a boat on the other side? And continue heading south and see what you see? If not, I can tell you that you can't know anything.

Did you read my post? If you did, recall that I said I was there for three months, the last sunset (at McMurdo) was in late October, and a few weeks later we departed for a two-month stay at a temporary field camp. That means most of my time on the ice was after that last McMurdo sunset. Three months after late October is late January, so, based on what I already said, I must have departed by or shortly before late January. I actually arrived 20 October and left 17 January. Do you think that is winter in Antarctica? Spoiler: it isn't.

That post was response was to this:

The same way everything about Antarctica is fake?

Btw, a land covered by ice shouldn't have 24 hours of sunlight. That's not rational.

Rather, whether a flat Earth model or a round Earth, if an area is perpetually cold, it could be because the sun never hits it. Rather than midnight sun or strange 24 hour sunlight, you should actually be seeing perpetual darkness. Given you say that the Earth "wobbles" you might get occasional sunlight around then. But if a mass of ice were hit 24 hours by a sun with an extreme heat of 27 million degrees at its core (though you say this is at a distance, like the other thread where gravity is brought up), though its surface is 10 thousand degrees, pretty soon you have a mass of water not ice.

What I do know is that during the three month period I was there, the sun was up almost the entire time, and pretty much everywhere I went was ice and snow covered. The exception was downtown McMurdo late in the summer season, where heavy vehicle and foot traffic causes the snow to melt, which exposes soil (McMurdo is on Ross Island) in addition to areas of naturally-exposed rock and soil. The exposed soil causes other snowy areas to become dirty from traffic and wind-blown dust, which means it absorbs more sunlight, which causes it to melt, etc.

And, no. We had a job to do. We flew from the US to NZ, then from NZ to McMurdo, prepared equipment and supplies for the field work, flew from there to set up some field stations at scattered locations, and I stayed at one of them for two months, then returned to McMurdo, checked borrowed equipment back in and prepped our own for the return trip, then flew to NZ and back to the US. We didn't spend time driving around except when moving equipment to and from staging areas in McMurdo. We used no boats.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures. 

Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

If not, I can tell you that you can't know anything.
1. You can't know there isn't a completely huge ice wall during the height of brutal winter.
2. You can't know that Antarctica wasn't just a long icy circle around the 60 degree to 75 degree mark, and after that something else closer to 90 degrees
3. You can't know if you are closing in on the southern edge of the Earth, having gone completely around the island or whether you were skirting the northern tip.
4. You can't know if there is an ice wall much further inland.
5. Or if beyond Antarctica, the world extends into other islands.
6. Or if the map of Antarctica really looks more like this

You mean YOU choose not to know anything.
Other people can know things, because they want to find out how reality works.
For example, quite related to this is the issue from the other thread which you chose to ignore, that of the south celestial pole, which demonstrates quite clearly that it is a southern pole and that those in Antarctica are close to it. Related to this is the sun, which can be observed due south around mid-night, with it remaining above the horizon for quite a long time.
Another is the distance. For your fantasy, the distance is much much much greater than what it is in reality.

So no, people can know that Antarctica is a continent in the southern hemisphere which contains the south celestial pole, and that it is a pole of a round Earth.

You not liking that and choosing to remain wilfully ignorant will not change that fact and it doesn't mean that no one else can know.

Remember I talked about these lines? And how round Earthers use that you can circle the "globe" as proof that the Earth is round? Oh yes, but a disc is also round, it doesn't mean it is a globe. You're just circling these lines, skimming the very edge of Antarctica.

Except as already pointed out, that would take far too long.

So the thing is, we have this random AF trip where James cook nonetheless seems to have missed large portions of water in the center of point A (India to Australia and China) and Point B (between Russia/China/Australia and the Americas).  If he was trying to prove there are no hidden islands, he did a bad job.

Only if you want to pretend there was absolutely no one before him (nor his prior voyage), and if you want to blatantly lie about the purpose.
He wasn't trying to find hidden islands.
He was trying to find a large continent

If we look at this with the perspective as I said of east being clockwise, then much of this continent hasn't actually been explored. Nor has much of the ocean, since those circles he did look much much different on a flat Earth map

You mean if we completely throw reality out the window?
No thanks.
I will stick to reality, where the distances involved show your fantasy doesn't work.

Showing that it would be different in your fantasy has no impact on reality.

Texture errors abound in the middle of the Pacific. There could be a hidden island as huge as Atlantis or Mu, an actual continent, and we wouldn't know it because our explorers all used assumptions about exploration that might not be so.

Again, your fantasy has no impact on reality.
It is quite well established that Earth is round, with plenty of evidence supporting it.
If you need to pretend that Earth might be flat, then you aren't objecting to assumptions that "might not be so". Instead you are appealing to assumptions to pretend there could be more space, with assumptions that are not so.

Most of this world knows that Antarctica looks like this.
They know it's cold. They know it has penguins. They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.

Most people not knowing something doesn't magically mean it is false.
For most specific details, most people don't know, and that is true about almost everything.
The big difference between Antarctica and your fantasy, is that people can learn and obtain evidence for Antarctica, and there is already plenty of evidence that has been obtained; but for your fantasy there is none, and no explanation.

In other words, if knowing you don't know is wise, and thinking you know is folly, I am a touch more wise, and I will admit that I've not spent 3 months in a Porsche tooling about probably with no idea where to go to test for certain whether or not there's an ice wall. Most of the people disputing flat Earth have literally no concept how the theory works. As proof of this, the military guy who did the green arrow mistakenly thought that what he was pointing to was east when he actually pointed south. If they aren't even sure what they're disputing, how can they disprove it?

As you said, Pot meet Kettle.
You have claimed to know so much, which you cannot justify at all, and have tried to object to the RE, while clearly either having no idea what you are talking about, or intentionally misrepresenting it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

If not, I can tell you that you can't know anything.
1. You can't know there isn't a completely huge ice wall during the height of brutal winter.
2. You can't know that Antarctica wasn't just a long icy circle around the 60 degree to 75 degree mark, and after that something else closer to 90 degrees
3. You can't know if you are closing in on the southern edge of the Earth, having gone completely around the island or whether you were skirting the northern tip.
4. You can't know if there is an ice wall much further inland.
5. Or if beyond Antarctica, the world extends into other islands.
6. Or if the map of Antarctica really looks more like this

You mean YOU choose not to know anything.
Other people can know things, because they want to find out how reality works.
For example, quite related to this is the issue from the other thread which you chose to ignore, that of the south celestial pole, which demonstrates quite clearly that it is a southern pole and that those in Antarctica are close to it. Related to this is the sun, which can be observed due south around mid-night, with it remaining above the horizon for quite a long time.
Another is the distance. For your fantasy, the distance is much much much greater than what it is in reality.

So no, people can know that Antarctica is a continent in the southern hemisphere which contains the south celestial pole, and that it is a pole of a round Earth.

You not liking that and choosing to remain wilfully ignorant will not change that fact and it doesn't mean that no one else can know.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

Remember I talked about these lines? And how round Earthers use that you can circle the "globe" as proof that the Earth is round? Oh yes, but a disc is also round, it doesn't mean it is a globe. You're just circling these lines, skimming the very edge of Antarctica.

Except as already pointed out, that would take far too long.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

So the thing is, we have this random AF trip where James cook nonetheless seems to have missed large portions of water in the center of point A (India to Australia and China) and Point B (between Russia/China/Australia and the Americas).  If he was trying to prove there are no hidden islands, he did a bad job.

Only if you want to pretend there was absolutely no one before him (nor his prior voyage), and if you want to blatantly lie about the purpose.
He wasn't trying to find hidden islands.
He was trying to find a large continent

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

If we look at this with the perspective as I said of east being clockwise, then much of this continent hasn't actually been explored. Nor has much of the ocean, since those circles he did look much much different on a flat Earth map

You mean if we completely throw reality out the window?
No thanks.
I will stick to reality, where the distances involved show your fantasy doesn't work.

Showing that it would be different in your fantasy has no impact on reality.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

Texture errors abound in the middle of the Pacific. There could be a hidden island as huge as Atlantis or Mu, an actual continent, and we wouldn't know it because our explorers all used assumptions about exploration that might not be so.

Again, your fantasy has no impact on reality.
It is quite well established that Earth is round, with plenty of evidence supporting it.
If you need to pretend that Earth might be flat, then you aren't objecting to assumptions that "might not be so". Instead you are appealing to assumptions to pretend there could be more space, with assumptions that are not so.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

Most of this world knows that Antarctica looks like this.
They know it's cold. They know it has penguins. They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures.

Most people not knowing something doesn't magically mean it is false.
For most specific details, most people don't know, and that is true about almost everything.
The big difference between Antarctica and your fantasy, is that people can learn and obtain evidence for Antarctica, and there is already plenty of evidence that has been obtained; but for your fantasy there is none, and no explanation.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

In other words, if knowing you don't know is wise, and thinking you know is folly, I am a touch more wise, and I will admit that I've not spent 3 months in a Porsche tooling about probably with no idea where to go to test for certain whether or not there's an ice wall. Most of the people disputing flat Earth have literally no concept how the theory works. As proof of this, the military guy who did the green arrow mistakenly thought that what he was pointing to was east when he actually pointed south. If they aren't even sure what they're disputing, how can they disprove it?

As you said, Pot meet Kettle.
You have claimed to know so much, which you cannot justify at all, and have tried to object to the RE, while clearly either having no idea what you are talking about, or intentionally misrepresenting it.

On the contrary. I grew up with round Earth science. Elementary school, middle school, high school, and finally college. I skipped math in college thanks to community college giving me courses up to Calculus (which I mostly forgot, as there is zero use for it in my daily life or work), but I continued with chemistry, physics, and finally studied horticulture before getting completely sick and tired of labs, papers, and tests (my major was history, and I switched my minor over to religion). I got plenty of this crap taught to me.

Not only do you not properly understand how a flat Earth works, you do not even really understand  your own theory. The navy or whatever guy pointed south precisely because he, like most of you, do not understand the purpose of lines of latitude. Kindly do the following. Position your index finger upward and make a circular motion.
Whether you are dealing with globe or disc-shaped (hence flat on top with soil, rock, etc below) Earth, you make these circles when you go around the Earth. They do not prove the world is a globe. The way to prove that is to measure the length of the circles of latitude and whether they actually contract (that is, does a trip from US to China  back to US take less time than a trip around the equator? Does it take the same amount of time for a certain latitude N as the same latitude south (e.g. do 40 N and 40 S both take several hours of flight less than an equator trip?)
If not, then you are working with an abstract model, not an actual image of what is going on. Btw, no maps agree on this, so you'd need to make three trips around the world. You can't just trust a globe or map not to be distorted.

Round Earth follows rules of geometry as well as rules of science. Most world maps depict the Earth not as a flat ever-expanding disc, nor  even a globe. If we have equal lines of latitude as in the average map, we are really looking at a cylinder. But this model doesn't work either. Water doesn't stand upright. All models of the Earth are abstracts.

Round Earthers often talk about how in flat Earth airplane flights have to adjust constantly, pointing out just how incredibly ignorant they are. Flat Earthers know that they are working in theory, since most of the science on this is in extremely old tomes, some of which are in another language or too dry to follow. They have to instead piece together what they know from existing math and science. So yes, I am more familiar with your own system than you. That is why I refuse to believe in it anymore.

Btw, youguys didn't even get Cook's circumnavigation route right. He did check the upper sections.

The way to prove that is to measure the length of the circles of latitude and whether they actually contract (that is, does a trip from US to China  back to US take less time than a trip around the equator?

Done:

On the contrary. I grew up with round Earth science. Elementary school, middle school, high school, and finally college.

And you clearly didn't care enough to pay attention and actual retain any of that knowledge.

Not only do you not properly understand how a flat Earth works, you do not even really understand  your own theory.

You sure do love projection don't you?
I understand a variety of FE models, and the mainstream model, quite well.

It is you that has been repeatedly spouting pure garbage, refusing to defend the FE model and instead literally ignoring problems with it, while continually spouting complete falsehoods about the RE model.
The nonsense you are spouting would be quite clearly nonsense to anyone who has taken basic mechanics.

The navy or whatever guy pointed south precisely because he, like most of you, do not understand the purpose of lines of latitude.

They pointed east, which if you continue in a straight line would end up being south for that FE map.
In fact, for that FE model, if you pick any location and any direction, after long enough, it is going roughly south.

As for latitude, that is just another thing which makes no sense at all on a FE.
On a FE, while you can justify the longitude being an angle, it should be using polar coordinates, with a radius and an angle.
An angular measure for distance from the north poles makes no sense.

But for a RE, it makes sense to use an angle for both, as you are describing a location on the surface of a sphere.
You could use 3 coordinates, to also include the radius, but that would be fairly constant at roughly 6400 km.

But notice how yet again, you just deflect the BS you have spouted and had refuted.

Instead of focusing on the fact that Cook's journey couldn't have been undertaken on a FE because of the distances involved, you just ignore that and jump on this BS.

Btw, no maps agree on this, so you'd need to make three trips around the world.

Wrong again.
The RE maps do agree on this. You refusing to understand the projection involved doesn't change that fact.

But even if you did want to ignore that, you don't need to make three trips around the world.
You just need to measure the length of a change in longitude at a given latitude.
For example, you can determine how long 15 degrees of longitude is at each location.

And a good example of that is Australia, which the FE garbage has far too wide.

Most world maps depict the Earth not as a flat ever-expanding disc, nor  even a globe. If we have equal lines of latitude as in the average map, we are really looking at a cylinder.

Only to those who wish to remain wilfully ignorant.
Most world maps depict Earth as a globe, using a known projection.

Round Earthers often talk about how in flat Earth airplane flights have to adjust constantly

How many do that because they genuinely think that, vs how many are just doing that to point out the stupidity of FEers claiming planes need to constantly tilt down?

Flat Earthers know that they are working in theory

No, FEers foolishly believe they are working in theory, while in reality they are working in fantasy, refusing to even try to make a hypothesis which can be tested because they know that when they do, their model falls apart as it doesn't match reality.

So yes, I am more familiar with your own system than you.

Then why do you keep spouting such ignorant garbage about it, getting even incredibly basic things wrong?
You either don't know very much about it and are vastly less familiar with it than me; or are you being intentionally dishonest by pretending there are problems when you know that what you are spouting is false.

Which is it?

Btw, youguys didn't even get Cook's circumnavigation route right. He did check the upper sections.

Wrong again.
You sure do love being wilfully ignorant don't you.
Did you bother reading what I said? Here it is again:

FEers will normally focus on his second voyage, as that included circumnavigating Antarctica, and it took a roughly 3 years, starting on 13 July 1772, and ending on 30 July 1775.

Notice how I appealed specifically to his second voyage?
What you have shown are the three voyages.
In your image, the red line is the first voyage, the green one is the second, and the blue one is the third, with the dashed portions occurring after they did.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures. 

Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.

Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.

Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2022, 11:58:16 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures. 

Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.

Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.

Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.

PETA is a terrorist organization.

Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.

Penguins are depraved SOBs. If we didn't molest them, they would molest each other in good time anyway. If it has a hole, they will molest it. That's what penguins do.

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2022, 11:58:16 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures. 

Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.

Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.

Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.

Ok so you disagree with the method, but the results are still just as true.  Why go all emotional and change the subject.  Does it make your statements about penguins keeping from freezing to death incorrect, yes.  We all would rather not harm the penguins.  I would hope they did these experiments on dead penguins and not kill them, but usually the penguins are killed by being eaten by something so they may have had to kill a few.  Doesn't make it better, but we weren't talking about the methods.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 04, 2022, 12:14:14 AM

The way to prove that is to measure the length of the circles of latitude and whether they actually contract (that is, does a trip from US to China  back to US take less time than a trip around the equator?

Done:

You can't depend on a third party projection to tell you things. You have to verify. You have to actually measure it yourself.


In this model, the Earth has a a horizontal and vertical taper, with lines of latitude and longitude longest when they extend from the zero point. Because of the wide shape, unlike a globe, it has a fairly wide distance before any taper.

This is a globe model. In this model, Earth is a complete circle in all directions. Extreme tapering happens, and ypu would expect that a Canada trip to Russia or Sweden would take only a few hours. We can check this by travel times, but we can only verify it by making the actual trip (you'd probably need a stealth plane that you own and to set the same speed for each flight, airlines do too many goofy stops, so the path isn't straight). This model also allows on to make a trip from Chile to Australia during its warmest season.

This is a flat map. In this map, there is no taper. If we were to plow through solid land on a boat (that image  ) it would take the same amount of time from Russia to somewhere in Canada of equal latitude heading west to east that it would take closer to the equator.

So what map do sailors and pilots use?

Flat map

Also flat map. There isn't any projection of curvature here. For people actually sailing, they aren't given this nonsense.

It would be utterly unhelpful. They are given a flat map or a GPS, which is also a flat map.

No taper. Taper is for people sitting in armchairs fascinated with the idea that Earth is round, not people actually sailing the Earth.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 06, 2022, 06:33:55 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2022, 11:58:16 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures. 

Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.

Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.

Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.

Ok so you disagree with the method, but the results are still just as true.  Why go all emotional and change the subject.  Does it make your statements about penguins keeping from freezing to death incorrect, yes.  We all would rather not harm the penguins.  I would hope they did these experiments on dead penguins and not kill them, but usually the penguins are killed by being eaten by something so they may have had to kill a few.  Doesn't make it better, but we weren't talking about the methods.

Either they know this through tainted methods (read legal documents about "fruit of the poisoned tree"), or they didn't do this (thank God) in which case they are (to quote a frenemy) blind guessing.
https://www.cheronislaw.com/blog/2022/05/what-is-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-legal-doctrine/

And yes, it does matter if the scientist supposed to be preserving the natural landscape of Antarctica while they study it are instead butchering penguins.

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 06, 2022, 06:58:44 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 06, 2022, 06:33:55 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2022, 11:58:16 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2022, 06:15:14 AM

They can't tell us how penguins survive in 70 below temperatures. 

Sure they do. It's just that you don't possess any knowledge and just make shit up:

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

So you're telling me that some sick freaks made a special trip to Antarctica just to perform cruelty to animals and cut open a few penguins to see what is inside.

Either they don't really know this and are just making a guess.

Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.

Ok so you disagree with the method, but the results are still just as true.  Why go all emotional and change the subject.  Does it make your statements about penguins keeping from freezing to death incorrect, yes.  We all would rather not harm the penguins.  I would hope they did these experiments on dead penguins and not kill them, but usually the penguins are killed by being eaten by something so they may have had to kill a few.  Doesn't make it better, but we weren't talking about the methods.

Either they know this through tainted methods (read legal documents about "fruit of the poisoned tree"), or they didn't do this (thank God) in which case they are (to quote a frenemy) blind guessing.
https://www.cheronislaw.com/blog/2022/05/what-is-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-legal-doctrine/

And yes, it does matter if the scientist supposed to be preserving the natural landscape of Antarctica while they study it are instead butchering penguins.

What a limited and closed minded way of thinking.  You don't like the data gathered from it so no matter what facts come out of it then it must be false and you attack the method.  The method is definitely up for discussion, but the data gathered is still true and if it disagrees with your position, then you need to reevaluate your position.  Or actually attack the data gathered and show how it is tainted. 

Quote from: Stash on September 04, 2022, 12:42:08 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 04, 2022, 12:14:14 AM

The way to prove that is to measure the length of the circles of latitude and whether they actually contract (that is, does a trip from US to China  back to US take less time than a trip around the equator?

Done:

You can't depend on a third party projection to tell you things. You have to verify. You have to actually measure it yourself.

What have you measured? Are you saying that no one can rely on any maps because they haven't personally measured stuff? You realize the insanity in that notion, right?

No taper. Taper is for people sitting in armchairs fascinated with the idea that Earth is round, not people actually sailing the Earth.

You are wildly wrong here and ridiculously ignorant. People actually sailing the earth use nautical maps, like these that are used by everyone in that biz - Take a clear notice of what I called out with the red box:





The North American Datum (NAD) is the horizontal datum now used to define the geodetic network in North America. A datum is a formal description of the shape of the Earth along with an "anchor" point for the coordinate system.

Because the Earth is curved and in GIS we deal with flat map projections, we need to accommodate both the curved and flat views of the world. In surveying and geodesy, we accurately define these properties with geodetic datums.

We begin modeling the Earth with a sphere or ellipsoid. Over time, surveyors have gathered a massive collection of surface measurements to more reliably estimate the ellipsoid.

When you combine these measurements, we arrive at a geodetic datum. Datums precisely specify each location on Earth’s surface in latitude and longitude. For example, NAD27, NAD83, and WGS84 are geodetic datums.

If you were creating nautical maps 10's of thousands of ships would be lost at sea.

Or they have to answer to PETA for molesting poor little flightless birds.

Why would they need to answer to an organisation which is one of the cruellest to animals?
An organisation which steals pets just to murder them?
An organisation which quite happily runs slaughter houses and falsely calls them shelters?

In this model, the Earth has a a horizontal and vertical taper, with lines of latitude and longitude longest when they extend from the zero point. Because of the wide shape, unlike a globe, it has a fairly wide distance before any taper.
This is a globe model. In this model, Earth is a complete circle in all directions. Extreme tapering happens, and ypu would expect that a Canada trip to Russia or Sweden would take only a few hours. We can check this by travel times, but we can only verify it by making the actual trip (you'd probably need a stealth plane that you own and to set the same speed for each flight, airlines do too many goofy stops, so the path isn't straight). This model also allows on to make a trip from Chile to Australia during its warmest season.
This is a flat map. In this map, there is no taper. If we were to plow through solid land on a boat (that image  ) it would take the same amount of time from Russia to somewhere in Canada of equal latitude heading west to east that it would take closer to the equator.
So what map do sailors and pilots use?
Flat map
Also flat map. There isn't any projection of curvature here. For people actually sailing, they aren't given this nonsense.
It would be utterly unhelpful. They are given a flat map or a GPS, which is also a flat map.
No taper. Taper is for people sitting in armchairs fascinated with the idea that Earth is round, not people actually sailing the Earth.

You failing to comprehend how map projections work doesn't mean that all those projections don't agree.
It just shows you are being wilfully ignorant, like you are of so many things.
It also doesn't mean Earth is flat.

The shape of Earth is incredibly important for those sailing and flying long distance on Earth, as if you don't account for it you will no idea how long the journey will take or how much fuel you will need, or what the best route is.

Either they know this through tainted methods

You mean methods you don't like.
But that means they do know it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 06, 2022, 07:07:48 AM

You can't depend on a third party projection to tell you things. You have to verify. You have to actually measure it yourself.

What have you measured? Are you saying that no one can rely on any maps because they haven't personally measured stuff? You realize the insanity in that notion, right?

When you combine these measurements, we arrive at a geodetic datum. Datums precisely specify each location on Earth’s surface in latitude and longitude. For example, NAD27, NAD83, and WGS84 are geodetic datums.[/i]

If you were creating nautical maps 10's of thousands of ships would be lost at sea.

Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.

How many people died of COVID in 2022 so far?
12 million people
The year before?
36 million
2020?
24.56 million

I looked at no charts or statistics. I just came up with those numbers out of thin air. The key to good fake statistics is making them sound believable. The other is making charts that have an intended effect.

(Notice the dramatic effect, and then look at how the graph really only pertains to climate increase of 0.6 degrees over 150 years)

 You may think that I'm exaggerating. But we compared the actual COVID figures to the population of a town. It turned out that they had three times as many cases as that town's population. Yes, they're pulling numbers out of their ass too. Specifically, they were doing so in order to cause a hysteria.

This, my friend, is why it is utterly irrelevant what number than computer spits out. You have to actually fly the route.

Here's another example. We have a time lapse of the future.

But these are projections. We may project that cities will continue growing over the next 50 years. The math may show us a clear picture of this. But we don't actually know whether in the next 2 years there wouldn't be some major social upheaval, and now we all live in trees or something. Projections are GUESSES, not accurate data. Projections are the same as a weather forecast. They are made by going into your own head and doing math, or by using computers to do the same thing. Yes measuring a tangent line does give you an okay idea of the height of an object. But if you climb it instead, you figure out that you thought the angle of sight to the tree was 30° when actually it was 34.5° and this changes the height of the tree. You also forgot that the true height of the tree involves its roots. Going to measure the tree yourself by uprooting it, you get a quite different result entirely. Projections in math don't matter.

As for that lovely disclaimer about working to make a circular map, it sounds like something they were forced to say. But no, that couldn't be right. It's not like there is some large bureaucratic organization or something...

Quote from: Stash on September 06, 2022, 10:35:19 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 06, 2022, 07:07:48 AM

You can't depend on a third party projection to tell you things. You have to verify. You have to actually measure it yourself.

What have you measured? Are you saying that no one can rely on any maps because they haven't personally measured stuff? You realize the insanity in that notion, right?

When you combine these measurements, we arrive at a geodetic datum. Datums precisely specify each location on Earth’s surface in latitude and longitude. For example, NAD27, NAD83, and WGS84 are geodetic datums.[/i]

If you were creating nautical maps 10's of thousands of ships would be lost at sea.

Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.

So you're say that map makers just make up all of their measurements?  Yet they work?

How many people died of COVID in 2022 so far?
12 million people
The year before?
36 million
2020?
24.56 million

I looked at no charts or statistics. I just came up with those numbers out of thin air. The key to good fake statistics is making them sound believable. The other is making charts that have an intended effect.

(Notice the dramatic effect, and then look at how the graph really only pertains to climate increase of 0.6 degrees over 150 years)

A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all of the oceans, the atmosphere, and the land masses by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.

You may think that I'm exaggerating. But we compared the actual COVID figures to the population of a town. It turned out that they had three times as many cases as that town's population. Yes, they're pulling numbers out of their ass too. Specifically, they were doing so in order to cause a hysteria.

Who is "we"?
What town?
What numbers?

Who is making up numbers now?

Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.

Which doesn't mean everyone else is.
You not liking numbers doesn't mean they are fake.

This, my friend, is why it is utterly irrelevant what number than computer spits out. You have to actually fly the route.

Like the plenty of routes in the southern hemisphere which show the FE is nonsense?

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

Quick question.

Generally speaking penguin survivability testing is within our reach in terms of dollars. 

If oxygen was setup for the penguin how many days do you think the aquatic bird would last in a commercial freeze dryer? 

"Typically, the operational temperature of condensers in commercial freeze-dryers is around 208.15 K (− 65 °C)."

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2022, 11:58:16 AM

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

Quick question.

Generally speaking penguin survivability testing is within our reach in terms of dollars. 

If oxygen was setup for the penguin how many days do you think the aquatic bird would last in a commercial freeze dryer? 

"Typically, the operational temperature of condensers in commercial freeze-dryers is around 208.15 K (− 65 °C)."

It wouldn't survive, unless the devices was significantly modified. Most of these devices are anoxic zones and not designed for living things. The penguin might survive the cold but at best have severe hypoxia.

Quote from: fmax on September 08, 2022, 06:34:01 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2022, 11:58:16 AM

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

Quick question.

Generally speaking penguin survivability testing is within our reach in terms of dollars. 

If oxygen was setup for the penguin how many days do you think the aquatic bird would last in a commercial freeze dryer? 

"Typically, the operational temperature of condensers in commercial freeze-dryers is around 208.15 K (− 65 °C)."

It wouldn't survive, unless the devices was significantly modified. Most of these devices are anoxic zones and not designed for living things. The penguin might survive the cold but at best have severe hypoxia.

Since when are you a Penguin expert?

Why don't you run your ignorant theory by these folks and see what you come up with:

https://www.penguinsinternational.org/

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 08, 2022, 08:24:16 AM

Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.

Which doesn't mean everyone else is.
You not liking numbers doesn't mean they are fake.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 08, 2022, 08:24:16 AM

This, my friend, is why it is utterly irrelevant what number than computer spits out. You have to actually fly the route.

Like the plenty of routes in the southern hemisphere which show the FE is nonsense?

I don't dislike numbers.

I dislike falsehood.

I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant  doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.

So, yes, I know crap when I see it.

In either climate graph, they are artificially inflated so that the lines are at the top of this graph. This graph should be in a scale of 10. If the degrees are 10 degrees warmer on average, this is a cause for alarm. Maybe. 0.6 or even 1.0 is not. Which would make all of these flatter than shown. Consider the economically ruinous plans proposed. Reducing all CO2 emissions to zero by a certain date (for barely 1 degree over 150 years, where it cannot be proved to even be human made).

"Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective.

Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day."

Converting to electric cars, even though such things involve rare earth parts that are more difficult to recycle, and often have toxic byproducts. Yeah, you guys are smoking crack if you think this is a better solution than simply continuing to offer incentives for car companies to make better emissions control valves. During Biden's big electric push, gas prices doubled or in some cases nearly tripled. When he finally eased off (probably to try to win an election), the cost tapered off significantly. This almost made many Americans broke. And if we're being honest, most people can't afford electric cars. As it was, the screwed-up economy made it so the average car was $10000+

This heavy cost is simply not worth the tiny effect it has on the environment. Even if we completely stopped burning things, making all energy systems shut down and threatening to freeze all of us to death in our homes, in one day, a volcano produces more waste than we do in 250 years.

By the way....

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

For 50 years, climate models have been wrong.

Since when are you a Penguin expert?

So according to this diagram, if we are going by the ice wall theory, penguins basically only live on the coastal edges of the ice wall.



There is no proof then, that they are even near these -70 degree temperatures.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 08, 2022, 02:55:30 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 08, 2022, 08:24:16 AM

Listen, I can create numbers out of my ass too.

Which doesn't mean everyone else is.
You not liking numbers doesn't mean they are fake.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 08, 2022, 08:24:16 AM

This, my friend, is why it is utterly irrelevant what number than computer spits out. You have to actually fly the route.

Like the plenty of routes in the southern hemisphere which show the FE is nonsense?

I don't dislike numbers.

I dislike falsehood.

I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant  doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.

So, yes, I know crap when I see it.

Yes, you know crap when you see it because they were your own crap numbers. Who is dumb enough to enter a science fair without making any kind of measurements anyway?

Kind of hypocritical to say you dislike falsehoods when you freely admit to making falsehoods.

Just because you know you made up your own numbers doesn't mean that everyone else on the planet makes up their own. Not everyone is as dishonest as you to make up numbers, especially for such a low-stakes endeavor as a kids science fair. God knows what you make up now as an adult if you even are one. Probably 10 times worse.

As evidenced by your remarks about covid numbers in some unnamed town. You totally made that up too. When will you stop making up things or is this just something you can't shake since childhood?

So according to this diagram, if we are going by the ice wall theory, penguins basically only live on the coastal edges of the ice wall.

Apparently they wander inland about 50+ miles max. Has nothing to do with an icewall.

Again, contact some folks who actually study such creatures instead of just making things up. Have you ever studied anything? I kinda think not. But you know what, lots of other people do.

There is no proof then, that they are even near these -70 degree temperatures.

Because they are not near -70 degree temperatures. If you paid attention for just a minute, you might learn something:

We all know that penguins endure and survive freezing temperatures in the Antarctic, these can range as low as -70˚C in the centre to -20 ˚C around the coast. Their bodies stay warm due to their insulating layers of blubber which lies just beneath the skin.

See that, -70˚C in the centre. -20˚C around the coast. Where are begins found? 50+ from the coast. Where's the centre? Over 1000 miles from the coast.

Quote from: fmax on September 08, 2022, 06:34:01 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2022, 11:58:16 AM

How Do Penguins Stay Warm? (Why don’t Penguin Feet Freeze?)

Quick question.

Generally speaking penguin survivability testing is within our reach in terms of dollars. 

If oxygen was setup for the penguin how many days do you think the aquatic bird would last in a commercial freeze dryer? 

"Typically, the operational temperature of condensers in commercial freeze-dryers is around 208.15 K (− 65 °C)."

It wouldn't survive, unless the devices was significantly modified. Most of these devices are anoxic zones and not designed for living things. The penguin might survive the cold but at best have severe hypoxia.

You really are great at ignoring things aren't you?

I don't dislike numbers.
I dislike falsehood.

You love falsehoods. You promote them all the time here. All while fleeing from reality.

I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant  doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.

So what you are saying is you love falsehoods and even have a history of using them.

So, yes, I know crap when I see it.

No, you don't.
You have an example of where you have produced crap, and are now just dismissing things like it as crap, even if it is vastly different.

It is like saying that you have seen a sheet of white paper, and now every time you see a white object you think it is a sheet of paper.

This graph should be in a scale of 10.

WHY?
Because you want it to be?
Because you want to try and minimise the change?
And would that be 10 C or 10 F?

If the degrees are 10 degrees warmer on average, this is a cause for alarm. Maybe. 0.6 or even 1.0 is not.

Based on what?
If the average temperature of Earth increased by 10 C, it would be almost total devastation.
even a part of a degree can be quite significant.

Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.

Pure BS.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
For 50 years, climate models have been wrong.

So we can add yet another thing to the ever growing list of things you entirely fail to understand.

It wouldn't survive,

I looked around and now see the principle of freeze drying would kill the penguin/any living thing.   In the search I noticed some used, ultra-low laboratory freezers can go -80C.  A lab freezer would work for testing but would need two small holes for air exchange... destroying the freezer in the process of testing. 

Not to introduce conspiracy but for some reason average folks cannot get penguins.   .gov has created a condition making penguin testing impossible.   

We'd have to start from scratch with poster Deadeye getting eggs though his/her network.  Otherwise penguin testing is out of the question. 

No Penguins currently listed for placement

https://www.exoticanimalsforsale.net/penguins-for-sale.asp

I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant  doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.

You didn't go to college.  Science fair?  Made up graphs?  Sure thing.  So you lie about a story where the plot is that you lied. 

I don't dislike numbers.

I dislike falsehood.

Haha! 

I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant  doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.

Wow.  Admitting to being a liar or lying about been a liar.  Neither is great is it?

So, yes, I know crap when I see it.

You mean write it?

In either climate graph, they are artificially inflated so that the lines are at the top of this graph. This graph should be in a scale of 10. If the degrees are 10 degrees warmer on average, this is a cause for alarm. Maybe. 0.6 or even 1.0 is not. Which would make all of these flatter than shown. Consider the economically ruinous plans proposed. Reducing all CO2 emissions to zero by a certain date (for barely 1 degree over 150 years, where it cannot be proved to even be human made).

Hilarious.  You were arguing in another thread that Celsius was a useless scale because 1F could make such a big difference.  Your examples then were rubbish, but global temperature is something where a small change makes a massive difference.  And yes, we do know it’s us.

Converting to electric cars, even though such things involve rare earth parts that are more difficult to recycle, and often have toxic byproducts. Yeah, you guys are smoking crack if you think this is a better solution than simply continuing to offer incentives for car companies to make better emissions control valves. During Biden's big electric push, gas prices doubled or in some cases nearly tripled. When he finally eased off (probably to try to win an election), the cost tapered off significantly. This almost made many Americans broke. And if we're being honest, most people can't afford electric cars. As it was, the screwed-up economy made it so the average car was $10000+

This heavy cost is simply not worth the tiny effect it has on the environment. Even if we completely stopped burning things, making all energy systems shut down and threatening to freeze all of us to death in our homes, in one day, a volcano produces more waste than we do in 250 years.

The volcano thing is bollocks.

If that were true, we wouldn’t even notice the concentration change of CO2 in the atmosphere tracking with increasing industrialization, but we would see enormous jumps with volcanic eruptions.  Volcanic activity hasn’t massively increased over the last century, human emissions have.

By the way....

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

For 50 years, climate models have been wrong.

Ah, a 7 year old denier meme!  I thought you said you knew crap when you see it.

This was a classic example of cherry picking.  1998 was at the time a big record temperature jump, but it soon became the norm, and we’re now very unlikely to ever see a year that cold.  This graph deliberately used it as the starting year to hide the long term trend.

It’s been known all along that there are decadal scale oscillations in the ocean-atmosphere system, where more heat goes into the ocean and then is released.  ie surface temperatures rise quickly, then flatten out, then jump up again.  The first IPCC report back in 1990 explicitly said this is to be expected.

You’ve been listening to paid shills of the fossil fuel industry.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 08, 2022, 10:09:56 PM

I don't dislike numbers.

I dislike falsehood.

Haha! 

Quote

I remember doing a science fair in college for Horticulture class, and I had grown the plants for the fair, but had forgotten to make any kind of measurements. I grabbed some graphing paper, and on the spot, I drew a line showing the first plant  doing early growth then plateauing, whereas the plants that had grown later, eventually catching up. I had no idea the measurements, so I made them up on the spot and drew the graph.

Wow.  Admitting to being a liar or lying about been a liar.  Neither is great is it?

Quote

So, yes, I know crap when I see it.

You mean write it?

Quote

In either climate graph, they are artificially inflated so that the lines are at the top of this graph. This graph should be in a scale of 10. If the degrees are 10 degrees warmer on average, this is a cause for alarm. Maybe. 0.6 or even 1.0 is not. Which would make all of these flatter than shown. Consider the economically ruinous plans proposed. Reducing all CO2 emissions to zero by a certain date (for barely 1 degree over 150 years, where it cannot be proved to even be human made).

Hilarious.  You were arguing in another thread that Celsius was a useless scale because 1F could make such a big difference.  Your examples then were rubbish, but global temperature is something where a small change makes a massive difference.  And yes, we do know it’s us.

Quote

Converting to electric cars, even though such things involve rare earth parts that are more difficult to recycle, and often have toxic byproducts. Yeah, you guys are smoking crack if you think this is a better solution than simply continuing to offer incentives for car companies to make better emissions control valves. During Biden's big electric push, gas prices doubled or in some cases nearly tripled. When he finally eased off (probably to try to win an election), the cost tapered off significantly. This almost made many Americans broke. And if we're being honest, most people can't afford electric cars. As it was, the screwed-up economy made it so the average car was $10000+

This heavy cost is simply not worth the tiny effect it has on the environment. Even if we completely stopped burning things, making all energy systems shut down and threatening to freeze all of us to death in our homes, in one day, a volcano produces more waste than we do in 250 years.

The volcano thing is bollocks.

If that were true, we wouldn’t even notice the concentration change of CO2 in the atmosphere tracking with increasing industrialization, but we would see enormous jumps with volcanic eruptions.  Volcanic activity hasn’t massively increased over the last century, human emissions have.

Quote

By the way....

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

For 50 years, climate models have been wrong.

Ah, a 7 year old denier meme!  I thought you said you knew crap when you see it.

This was a classic example of cherry picking.  1998 was at the time a big record temperature jump, but it soon became the norm, and we’re now very unlikely to ever see a year that cold.  This graph deliberately used it as the starting year to hide the long term trend.

It’s been known all along that there are decadal scale oscillations in the ocean-atmosphere system, where more heat goes into the ocean and then is released.  ie surface temperatures rise quickly, then flatten out, then jump up again.  The first IPCC report back in 1990 explicitly said this is to be expected.

You’ve been listening to paid shills of the fossil fuel industry.

Uhhhh, no? You've been listening to paid shills of the electric industry. None of which have actually done themath on just how economically disastrous it would be to implement their plans.

And not just economically disastrous. ENVIRONMENTALLY disastrous.  As in, if you actually cared about the Earth,  rather than use "the planet" as an excuse for woke agenda, you would be able to see just how terrible these ideas are.

1. To make a single electric car involves bulldozing large tracts of land in order to find enough for an engine made from battery parts. This is literally a battery that size of a car engine.
2. Such engines might look clean at the consumer end, but in the disposal end and the priducer end, the effect on the environment is disgusting.
https://fee.org/articles/the-environmental-downside-of-electric-vehicles/
https://axlewise.com/are-electric-car-batteries-recycled/
(Basically, if you don't know what to do with these batteries, you can't just leave them in a junkyard, they leach nasty chemicals into the soil; to say nothing of the working with dangerous chemicals to produce the machine)
By contrast, a gas car is mostly just metal parts creating a combustion reaction.
3. EVs are declared "clean" simply because we don't see any CO2 belching out. But for every hour of extra energy that a power plant produces, this happens.

See this? Now see this.

Okay, so how many hours does it take to charge an EV? 10-21 hours barring a very expensive plug. And unlike the energy produced directly by combusting only a few gallons of fuel, the amount of energy diverted through power grids is very inefficient. It loses juice for each mile it travels. So 10+ hours of power plants. As more and more EVs are on the road, the energy use gets higher and high each hour, until...


Gas cars have fairly simple parts (before they decided to computerize), we're very customizable (until, see above), and had nowhere near the energy inefficiency of a power plant. But people saw a few old cars and were concerned.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/08/electric-vehicle-deforestation-global-climate-pledges/

9000 ACRES of forest were mowed down to make room for  mining these materials.

Meanwhile, Gore and Gates tell everyone else to conserve, while they fly around on jets preaching climate.