The boogey man of climate change - Page 112 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ashen Horse Update Bret F Books, Movies & Stories 8 06-15-2019 02:49 PM
U.S. Energy Dept balks at Trump request for names on climate change woodzman Political News and Discussion 56 12-22-2016 08:23 AM
trade war starting with Climate Change? Justme11 General Discussion 27 11-21-2016 01:29 PM
Mountain Man you out there? : ) MayDay Books, Movies & Stories 12 10-26-2016 06:07 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-12-2019, 09:53 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,922
Thanks: 2,603
Thanked 17,299 Times in 7,286 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by BearShark View Post

I don't see you admonishing PalmettoTree for talking about adaptation, or the Y2K bug, or any of the other posts which don't directly discuss the thread subject. I think you've simply developed a negative opinion as a result of your misrepresentation of what you thought I was saying and now you're lashing out.
What did I make two post completely out of context with the thread because I went brain dead and thought I was on the other discussion.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-12-2019, 10:02 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,922
Thanks: 2,603
Thanked 17,299 Times in 7,286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BearShark View Post
Personally I think climate change is real but that it doesn't matter because humanity will go extinct and that's a good thing. We shouldn't be polluting less, we should be polluting more and killing as many people as possible because humanity deserves to die.
You are free to think what you like but what you want to do is force what you think into restrictions on how everyone else lives.

The process is: Think then prove. You have proven nothing.

However in the case of CO2 the numbers prove it is not a cause of climate change. That proof has come from the numbers provided by your own data gathers.

On the other hand I will be trained later this month on how to test fresh water sources, streams, rivers, lakes and ponds for pollution.

I believe in working on real problems not imaginary ones someone else thinks is a problem.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Old 09-12-2019, 10:22 PM
ajole ajole is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,488
Thanks: 7,445
Thanked 21,233 Times in 6,772 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBLE BASIS
NEITHER DO YOU!

AND YELLING ABOUT IT WONT CHANGE THAT FACT!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Matzoh Ball Soup View Post
Thanks William. Much of this 'disagreement' would be avoided if posters did not conflate "climate change" (real), "anthropogenic" global warming (scam) and other real issues, especially human destruction of natural habitat / this accelerating mass extinction that threatens the survival of humans.
Hey...HE started this crap show, and HE keeps moving the targets and getting confused.

BTW...of course climate change is real. The only real argument is, which way is it really changing and over what interval do we measure that to determine the reality of things, and then, do we need to, or can we, do anything about it?

Not that WA can concentrate on that for long enough to make any headway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BearShark View Post
Either way, I've made my point. "Adaptation" is not a good outcome if alternatives exist.
Dude. You have made no points, at all.

ALL alternatives beyond “sit in a puddle of leftist tears and die”, will, without question, require adaptation. The left is SCREAMING for forced adaptation, without being able to prove the necessity, and without examining the results of those changes.
The so called “deniers” are arguing for a measured approach...and asking for some actual proof that isn’t built on admitted fraud, proven falsification, and bad agenda driven pseudo-science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BearShark View Post
Personally I think climate change is real but that it doesn't matter because humanity will go extinct and that's a good thing. We shouldn't be polluting less, we should be polluting more and killing as many people as possible because humanity deserves to die.
Oh. I see. You’re one of those guys.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-12-2019, 10:23 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,922
Thanks: 2,603
Thanked 17,299 Times in 7,286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post

YOU HAVE NO CREDIBLE BASIS .. CLIMATE CHANGE IS AS REAL AS GRAVITY. DENIAL HAS BEEN DEEMED MENTAL DISORDER! RECOGNIZE YOU ARE DELUSIONAL TO SAY CLIMATE IS NOT CHANGING OR THAT THE POLES ARE MELTING.

PLEASE JUST STOP THE NONSENSE.

You are sticking your head in the sand.

Here ingnore more facts in a see of infinite facts indicating global warming due to a greenhouse effect and climate change

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...unrecognizable
So what if plant life can grow higher up a mountain. It proves why we can feed more people. That is all it proves.

No one is denying global climate has changed. Just as no one is denying earths magnetic fields have moved and weakened.

What has been proven is man has not caused any of it.

What man has done in some areas is trash his own yard.

It is your ignorance that insists that everyone work on the wrong problem. This is why many things are getting worse. No only are you and your ilk making matters worse by not working on real problems you are wasting money that could be put to good use.

I have started taking a measure of people like you that I know. I ride by their home to look at the conditions, which they live and compare it to our conditions. I am not talking about home value but cleanliness and neatness.

I have come to one conclusion. People like you want to focus on these too big to solve issues alone or as a small group because you are too lazy to sweep around your own backdoor.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-13-2019, 11:54 AM
tiberius's Avatar
tiberius tiberius is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Non Terrestrial
Posts: 3,845
Thanks: 1,161
Thanked 2,028 Times in 1,196 Posts
Default

Oops, people are leaking Sulphur Hexafluoride.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-e...9YG8tMiA8HdlsY
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-13-2019, 02:54 PM
franklin franklin is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern US
Posts: 6,967
Thanks: 1,687
Thanked 13,027 Times in 4,515 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius View Post
Oops, people are leaking Sulphur Hexafluoride.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-e...9YG8tMiA8HdlsY
So the article is saying that due to AGW programs some of the worst greenhouse gasses are being released into the atmosphere.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to franklin For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2019, 03:39 PM
William Ashley William Ashley is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 110
Thanks: 10
Thanked 52 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Quote:
Matzoh Ball Soup
Thanks William. Much of this 'disagreement' would be avoided if posters did not conflate "climate change" (real), "anthropogenic" global warming (scam) and other real issues, especially human destruction of natural habitat / this accelerating mass extinction that threatens the survival of humans.
I don't think that applying blame is really needed, but it is undeniable that there are both natural and human caused inputs to how climate is changing and where. From city island heat effect, to large scale greenhouse gas production - both those caused by nature such as volcanic activity and manmade production causes such as fertilizer production. It is a known that thawing permafrost is generating increased amounts of methane into the atmosphere, and that enough ice mass is melting to cause continental uplift and sinking and that the amount of melt and warming of the oceans is causing thermal expansion and sea level rise. These are givens. There are no single inputs, but it is part of a larger interconnected system, one that humans can cause inputs that increase the rate of change, that is a given. I don't think it will be possible to really do anything to greatly change what is happening and it is very clear that the feedback loops in place are far more powerful than the political will to change in this generation - because we arn't seeing the full effects of the damage. I am someone who things it will happen, perhaps as a follow up to global war in 20 or so years but it is not a head in sand time, we need to think to 10 years or 20 years from now, as individuals make smart choices where we choose to purchase and develop property and how we develop that property in mind of long term environmental changes. The foods, trees we plant, the animals we choose as domesticated foodstock, changing conditions in some areas will be more impactful than other areas. Even the potential for invasive pests needs to be considered as the tempearture increases so too do pests ranges of activity - and in areas with no natural defences to those pests the effects can be devestating.



Quote:
The Old Coach
See if you can straighten WA and Triberrious out on that. Good Luck!
Good luck I have formed an opinion over a decade or more on this subject, it will take a lot of information or money to change my views.

Quote:
Palmetotree

However in the case of CO2 the numbers prove it is not a cause of climate change. That proof has come from the numbers provided by your own data gathers.
mon dieu.
Its complex, please don't depend on single stream single output direct correlations.. they are correlated, but there is way more going on. However to simplyfy more CO2 causes more heat. This is a novel aspect of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect. Now to say more co2 is causing more heat, yes, but more heat is causing more Co2 also. Case in point is release of methane release in permafrost areas, that breaks down into co2. More cows = more methane = more co2 BURNING MILLIONS OF YEARS OF GROUND SEQUESTERED CO2 causes more co2 in the atmosphere. More co2 does cause more heat. Please do not argue idiocy as we could just start talking about psychic powers and magic if we want to just ignore science in this discussion.


Quote:
ajole


The left is SCREAMING for forced adaptation, without being able to prove the necessity,


and asking for some actual proof that isn’t built on admitted fraud, proven falsification, and bad agenda driven pseudo-science.
---

ajole you need to read more, your knowledge base being limited to climate change denial sources of information is seriously stunting your potential for intelligence on this subject.
Bear in mind I am libertarian and would not normally be described as left leaning, even if I think some social policy can be good policy particularly as it relates to poverty reduction programs, somewhere I think should be the focus of all government programs and controls, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves due to the relatively stable conditions they have without governmental interferance.


Quote:
Palmettotree

So what if plant life can grow higher up a mountain. It proves why we can feed more people.
------

I would suggest you learn more about ecological habitats, niches etc.. while a niche can shift from one area to another it doesn't at default mean that it is growing larger, just changing its location. Also you are ignoring the growing triangle again from the video where it notes that alongside movement further up the mountain it also indicated that there were water shortages as a result of a shrinking ice
caps on the mountain chain, resulting in drought - something that is not advantageous to growing more food. Also you must consider specific
cases of specific food crops and their ideal growing conditions, or limits of growing conditions to actually apply a specific food growing
scenario. While it is a valid point to raise the potential for climate change bringing about change of growing season times, and locations for specific crops, just saying YEAH burning planet, more food, yay is not really a very smart position at default. You would need to supply specific growing scenarios and growing on a volcano isn't per se the smartest point of planting a crop, if it is still an active volcano. In fact I would say that doing heat related studies to a volcano would be very prone to error as a point of temperature conditions due to any activity in geothermal forces might introduce non atmospheric anomolies.

Quote:
palmettotree
What has been proven is man has not caused any of it.
-----
no.

no, no that hasn't been the case.

Quote:
palmettotree

People like you
------
ad hominem, foul

Quote:
palmettotree
want to focus on these too big to solve issues alone or as a small group because you are too lazy to sweep around your own backdoor.
----
hey man you want to lump me in with climate change tax people when my solution is to use carbon based materials as a new industrial age. not to limit big oil or industry -- -I am all for industry I just think we need a more self contained industrial process that creates more goods out of industrial wastes such as carbon producing and even nuclear wastes to create superior and more ecologically friendly end product.
I don't have a backdoor at the moment.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-13-2019, 05:22 PM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 8,910
Thanks: 2,773
Thanked 18,503 Times in 6,299 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin View Post
So the article is saying that due to AGW programs some of the worst greenhouse gasses are being released into the atmosphere.
Just wanted to emphasize that.

One more reason that "alternative energy", like electric cars, is worse for the environment than burning hydrocarbons. Who knew?
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-13-2019, 06:20 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,922
Thanks: 2,603
Thanked 17,299 Times in 7,286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post

mon dieu.
Its complex, please don't depend on single stream single output direct correlations.. they are correlated, but there is way more going on. However to simplyfy more CO2 causes more heat. This is a novel aspect of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect. Now to say more co2 is causing more heat, yes, but more heat is causing more Co2 also. Case in point is release of methane release in permafrost areas, that breaks down into co2. More cows = more methane = more co2 BURNING MILLIONS OF YEARS OF GROUND SEQUESTERED CO2 causes more co2 in the atmosphere. More co2 does cause more heat. Please do not argue idiocy as we could just start talking about psychic powers and magic if we want to just ignore science in this discussion.

------

I would suggest you learn more about ecological habitats, niches etc.. while a niche can shift from one area to another it doesn't at default mean that it is growing larger, just changing its location. Also you are ignoring the growing triangle again from the video where it notes that alongside movement further up the mountain it also indicated that there were water shortages as a result of a shrinking ice
caps on the mountain chain, resulting in drought - something that is not advantageous to growing more food. Also you must consider specific
cases of specific food crops and their ideal growing conditions, or limits of growing conditions to actually apply a specific food growing
scenario. While it is a valid point to raise the potential for climate change bringing about change of growing season times, and locations for specific crops, just saying YEAH burning planet, more food, yay is not really a very smart position at default. You would need to supply specific growing scenarios and growing on a volcano isn't per se the smartest point of planting a crop, if it is still an active volcano. In fact I would say that doing heat related studies to a volcano would be very prone to error as a point of temperature conditions due to any activity in geothermal forces might introduce non atmospheric anomolies.


.
In other words it is too complicated for you to understand well enough but you believe in forcing solutions you cannot even list much less prove.

Growing areas have and alway continue to shift with natural climate shifts.

It has been proven Up to 700 ppm of CO2 helps nature and is till short of hurting man. It has been proven increases in temperature will increase plant growing areas and in some cases cause double growing seasons.

Now if you would like to list the multi-variables you allege you cannot understand the rest of us will explain them to you. Yes that is sarcasm.

Sarcasm because you speak in subjective generalizations which is no way to identify a problem much less define the root causes and devise a solution. You do this because there is no problem with climate change. Climate change is like life as time passes everything changes. That is all there is to climate change.

You hit on the motivation behind you and your ilk _ taxes.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PalmettoTree For This Useful Post:
Old 09-15-2019, 05:52 AM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 8,910
Thanks: 2,773
Thanked 18,503 Times in 6,299 Posts
Default

Dr. Roy Spencer, who is one of the most trustworthy scientists debunking the CAGW CRISIS hoax, actually disagrees with the link I posted at post 2203, regarding the paper about propagation of error in temperature models.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/...limate-models/

This doesn't mean he's embracing the CAGW CRISIS cause, (far from it) but it should be considered by anyone who is serious about the discussion. Dr. Roy uses a simple model to explain his basic thinking (he's good at that), but the body of the post does get into concepts which are maybe beyond some lay readers.

Enjoy!
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-03-2019, 10:28 PM
William Ashley William Ashley is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 110
Thanks: 10
Thanked 52 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Not Brunt but another larger than multiple cities size iceberg just calved.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49885450

This one was a whoping 315 billion-tonnes

Its surface area is 1,636 sq km

That is about 632 square miles.

So to travel around it you would drive from New York City to Charlotte, NC, to Indianapolis and back to New York City.

And woud take about one day / 24 hours to travel around it at highway speeds.


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48249287
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-04-2019, 12:14 AM
ajole ajole is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,488
Thanks: 7,445
Thanked 21,233 Times in 6,772 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
Not Brunt but another larger than multiple cities size iceberg just calved.

And it had absolutely no effect on....anything, really.

They say the entire area “contributed” 4.6 mm of sea rise over the study period of 25 years...except no one has actually measured that anywhere, or if they have, it’s offset by LOWER sea levels elsewhere. 25 years of “study period” and they have calculated almost 2” of sea level rise...that isn’t really showing up anywhere, as the sea level rise is affected by things like subsidence of land masses...so while Cali and the east coast sink, producing what looks like rising sea levels, the coast of Alaska is actually seeing LOWER sea levels, as it lifts.

The global average is measured by satellites. For some odd reason, the sea level is higher away from land, so you can’t measure it relative to anything solid...you just have to accept the data they feed you, with no corroboration. So they say that in some places, it’s 20 centimeters higher over the 25 years...but mostly only out in the middle of the oceans, where no one but them can measure it.

And then there’s this...

“If West and East Antarctica are considered as a whole, this contribution is 4.6mm over the study period. It would have been more than a millimetre higher still had the eastern sector of the ice sheet not gained mass slightly over the period.“

Wait...part of the ice not only didn’t melt...it gained mass?

Oh well....just pretend that doesn’t matter, it doesn’t cast any doubt or raise any questions....ignore it and keep playing chicken little.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ajole For This Useful Post:
Old 10-04-2019, 12:34 AM
ajole ajole is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,488
Thanks: 7,445
Thanked 21,233 Times in 6,772 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
Good luck I have formed an opinion over a decade or more on this subject, it will take a lot of information or money to change my views.
Oh...so your opinion is for sale, too, just like the priests of the AGW religion. Good to know.



Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
ajole you need to read more, your knowledge base being limited to climate change denial sources of information is seriously stunting your potential for intelligence on this subject.
That’s rich. You assume I read ANYTHING from the “denial sources.” Whatever those are.

Well, WA....I don’t. No need to. I read the AGW stuff you throw out, spot the obvious flaws all by myself, laugh at the sheer stupidity of those that actually believe the BS, and then call them on it.

I have a degree in Geography. We study things like weather, climate, plate tectonics, scientific data gathering, remote sensing, and all the other things you don’t seem to understand, that the AGW crowd is misusing.

Trust me...my ACTUAL intelligence on this matter is so far beyond your level of understanding, that my “potential” for intelligence would just scare you.

Let’s just say, if you had ANY clue at all...you’d shut up. Obviously, you don’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
Bear in mind I am libertarian and would not normally be described as left leaning, even if I think some social policy can be good policy particularly as it relates to poverty reduction programs, somewhere I think should be the focus of all government programs and controls, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves due to the relatively stable conditions they have without governmental interferance.
And yet you want to impose government interference on a massive scale, to try to deal with a fake problem. Truly hypocritical.

Compounded by the egg on your face hypocrisy your buddy Tiberius showed us, where the “good social policy” of “clean renewable power” is causing more environmental damage than would have occurred if they had simply done nothing.
BTW...same BS in Germany, where they are now 25% renewable energy...but are burning more low quality highly polluting brown coal than they have for many decades, thus producing more pollution than they did before.

Hypocrites and fools. That’s YOUR team, WA. And you keep saying they are right? We just don’t understand? If only we’d read more of their lies, we’d agree?

Only a pitiful deluded fool of a true believer, a worshipper at the altar of AGW, can’t figure this out
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ajole For This Useful Post:
Old 10-04-2019, 02:10 AM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 8,910
Thanks: 2,773
Thanked 18,503 Times in 6,299 Posts
Default

He's got an opinion, and that's his problem. Opinions don't yield to knowledge and understanding.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-04-2019, 02:32 AM
The Old Coach The Old Coach is offline
Militant Normal
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Western West Virginia
Posts: 8,910
Thanks: 2,773
Thanked 18,503 Times in 6,299 Posts
Default

Brown coal. Ghastly stuff. Loaded with sulphur which forms acid rain. I've seen first hand what it did to what once was a beautiful marble cathedral facade in Muehlhausen, a small city that was in the East Zone until the border fell. All the carving detail was eaten away, like an ice sculpture exposed to a blowtorch.

This is what Communism did for East Germany. Friend who had seen places farther east, like Dresden, said it was far worse there.

Nuclear power rescued Germany from all that, but the Greens are killing it.

Germans think they're smarter than the rest of us. NOT!
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to The Old Coach For This Useful Post:
Old 10-04-2019, 07:04 AM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,922
Thanks: 2,603
Thanked 17,299 Times in 7,286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Ashley View Post
That is about 632 square miles.

So to travel around it you would drive from New York City to Charlotte, NC, to Indianapolis and back to New York City.
Where did you learn math?

Let us pretend you are one of my grandchildren 10, two 9's and an 8 year old. Please show your work.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-04-2019, 08:00 AM
rtbanger rtbanger is offline
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 407
Thanks: 49
Thanked 669 Times in 262 Posts
Default yup

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Coach View Post
Brown coal. Ghastly stuff. Loaded with sulphur which forms acid rain. I've seen first hand what it did to what once was a beautiful marble cathedral facade in Muehlhausen, a small city that was in the East Zone until the border fell. All the carving detail was eaten away, like an ice sculpture exposed to a blowtorch.

This is what Communism did for East Germany. Friend who had seen places farther east, like Dresden, said it was far worse there.

Nuclear power rescued Germany from all that, but the Greens are killing it.

Germans think they're smarter than the rest of us. NOT!
When the greenies shut down Germans 36 nuke power plants Germany had to start importing gas, oil, and COAL, and the electricity prices TRIPPLED. People can no longer heat their homes due to the cost of electricity so people have the chimney sweeps come clean out chimneys that haven't been used in 20+ years and are now burning... wait for it COAL, scrap wood, old pallets(read treated wood) and the air quality is decreasing every day. Funny how that worked out isn't it? Either your family freezes in winter or you burn what you can find(most in Germany are not rich enough to afford the electricity price increase)?
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rtbanger For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2019, 06:03 AM
tiberius's Avatar
tiberius tiberius is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Non Terrestrial
Posts: 3,845
Thanks: 1,161
Thanked 2,028 Times in 1,196 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
Where did you learn math?

Let us pretend you are one of my grandchildren 10, two 9's and an 8 year old. Please show your work.
His math is correct, 631.66 rounded to the nearest integer is 632.
Where did you learn math?
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2019, 06:37 AM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,922
Thanks: 2,603
Thanked 17,299 Times in 7,286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius View Post
His math is correct, 631.66 rounded to the nearest integer is 632.
Where did you learn math?
No what is the perimeter of any land mass with 632 or 631.66 square miles? Then what is the distance from " New York City to Charlotte, NC, to Indianapolis and back to New York City"?

You are as bad as he is. LOL

Do the math and show your work.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2019, 07:02 AM
tiberius's Avatar
tiberius tiberius is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Non Terrestrial
Posts: 3,845
Thanks: 1,161
Thanked 2,028 Times in 1,196 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
No what is the perimeter of any land mass with 632 or 631.66 square miles? Then what is the distance from " New York City to Charlotte, NC, to Indianapolis and back to New York City"?

You are as bad as he is. LOL

Do the math and show your work.
"The calved block covers 1,636 sq km in area - a little smaller than Scotland's Isle of Skye - and is called D28."

The perimeter is about 143 km
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net