Simple proof albeit not practical for many. Seen that effect for more years than I like to remember.
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
To be fair, the Bible should not be considered a reason for believing the Flat Earth theory. The language used in the Bible was only used so that people of that time would understand the concepts of the religion based on their understanding of the world. They did not know that the earth was round, so that is why the language used reflected that ("The four corners of the earth", "As far as the east is from the west", etc).
I'm betting that 99.9% of people who believe in the Bible also know that the earth is round, not flat.
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
Hola Matt,
To believe something, you do not actually need nothing else than faith, not a book of any kind, I think. Not being a religious person (gave up, way to many years ago), I care little if at all of holy books of any kind.
The two I've have read, deceived me enough to insist.
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.
Have you read the thread title?As far as the thread, it could have been serious and informative
Have you read the thread title?
Serious and informative!! Look TC your good, but even you oh holy one couldnt make a flat earth thread informative or serious. Practice on something a l;ittle more simple first, may i be so bold as to suggest fidget spinners?
Simple proof albeit not practical for many. Seen that effect for more years than I like to remember.
So have I and I've seen how flat maps over those long sea distances distort what to expect on the earth. Globes reflect the earth accurately but it's hard to put a real one in the back pocket on a cell phone or device.
Most of us use projections like this one.
When the real proportions of land masses looks like this. A geographically accurate depiction of Earth.
http://www.authagraph.com/projects/description/【作品解説】記事01/?lang=en
I am not convinced.Mercator did a good service to us for going at sea
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?
Answer what?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!)..
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Do you mean hydrochlorofluorocarbons? Those and man-made, not found in nature, and not manufactured in nature.
Yeah calculator error, i didnt put enough zeros inOK, here s my calculation for 10 miles away. The % means the previous result on the above line. //N means give the the result in rational numbers.
View attachment 112198
Ratch
I am not convinced.
One of the supposed advantages of the Mercator projection is that angles are shown correctly. (So I was taught at school).
This may be true for short distances, but consider a direct route (flying) from London to Tokio.
Look at a Mercator map and the route appears to be east from London.
But on a globe or a map with azimuthal projection based on London, the direction is 30 degrees east (of north).
JimB
Ratch try and put some decent refs in, you wont get me bothering without them.
So looks like the climate change guys it all wrong! its water not gas to blame.
See what a mean, sweeping statement no reference, its utterly pointless to discuss something with someone who cant find, or cant be bothered to make a statement or provide a decent reference when asked for one... Even more pointless when you make statements like the above, shows lack of knowledge.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=36066
Yes does include some hydrochlorofluorocarbons, if you want to know which dont ask me, instead go and get the information yourself. I am not here to fetch information to support your side, thats your job!
Oh and hydrochloroflurocarbons are probably not what you meant..
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+...x-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=eRjNWoiKA9DG8Afzjo6IAg
Couldnt find water mentioned, but maybe this might be worth you reading, yes does contain a couple of errors i am aware of that, but its not entirely upto date.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d242/f4c14bde640fa91d4b544d65b3a607f2dbc3.pdf
Sorry couldnt find much of use on wikipedia for you.
Anyway this water vapor being the main issue....did you actually find a ref for that? or is this something you pulled out your erm hat.
You are aware that many threads with questionable beginnings morph into informative fun and decent one when everyone chooses to play nice and keep the personal attack crap out, right?
Why the continuous passive aggressive personal hostility toward me and anyone who disagrees with you anyway?
Still cant find H2O on any green house gas list, help me out and give a ref for it please. I would really appreciate decent reading material i can cite to show that H2O is a major gas in climate change..... Several of the tutors i know for enviromental science are watching this thread, they wuld also like to see this source (seriously), we find your theory......fascinating and would like to fully understand the mechanism.Water vapor and CO2 are both gases. What you should haved discerned is that the Sun controls the cloud cover and thereby the heat entering the Earth's atmosphere. I explained how that happens in previous posts. The Sun is the cause of the warming climate, but nothing is to blame.
No, I don't see what you mean. You first made reference to "transporation", which is a word that does not exist. Then you refer to HCFL, which also doesn't exist. That is why I asked if you meant hydrochloflocarbons.
If not HCFL, then what did you mean?
No water mentioned? When water vapor is a more potent heat insulating gas than CO2. Tsk, tsk. That puts the credibility of that document into question, doesn't it? Did they even mention that the increase in CO2 is the effect of the warming climate and not the cause?
Ratch
https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Millennials-flat-earth-theory-two-thirds-study-12813321.php
I give up.
#45 does not believe in climate change.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?