RE: Ground shrinkage12 Jul 2022 23:53
67sam
Maciismos first post said 97% of scientists if I remember correctly, that wording would have meant 97% of the world's scientific community! agreed with these findings. Next, you come up with 97-99% in your post, a difference of 2%, of published scientists in a couple of minutes. Could you tell us the total number of published scientists from which the percentages figures came, was it 10.100 or 1000?. Now how many of your published scientists would have a vested interest in promoting this climate ideology would they have the funding for research etc. And how many years would they have been carrying out this research and how many more years will they need, to arrive at a definitive answer nice work if you can get it.
Now any scientist will tell you 67sam if doing research using analytical data, such as comparing temperature measurements separated by decades or even more, they would require the research to use compar, able equipment. If you want to prove that the temperature has risen say 1 degree over the last 50 years you would need to use the same calibrated equipment, do you understand?
So let us say I took a temperature reading 50yrs ago and I wish to prove today that the temperature has risen by one degree, I would need to use the same calibrated instrument. Modern instruments are much more accurate than they were in the past so the readings may not have changed just the equipment has. Do the scientists use facts to prove a theory or make the facts suit their agenda? I think the University of East Anglia got caught doing just that.
I ask that because the old theory of how and why the ice caps, which covered practically the whole of the Northern Hemisphere disappeared, was that the depth of ice being between 3 & 7 miles thick, caused it to be crushed and broken down into smaller units under its own weight. Now the new theory is that a build-up of Co2 ( that needed to pop up to justify the new theory)caused the ice to melt, see you can move the facts to suit your science model. So the scientific experts of yesterday were wrong! but today's scientists are correct until tomorrow scientists appear. And they conjecture that when the old ice caps melted the oceans rose by 10 m. But today the ice coverage is only a small fraction of the ancient ice cap, and they predict a sea-level rise of over 1 m. And any ice covering water such as in the Arctic would cause no rise in levels. The glaciers in the Himalayas started receding in the 1920s, not the 1980s as shown in a BBC programme some years ago. The BBC also aired a programme on the inland Russian Aral sea in which it was shown that the sea had practically dried up, due to climate change! well, the climate had no effect on the water levels, the sea had been used to irrigate newly plants 100 square miles of cotton plants. Now they are replenishing the water in the Aral sea.
And there is an interesting story of why they had more forest fires in Calfornia.