When your grasp on reality is broken, you can be convinced of any nonsense.

I wonder how this man profits from spreading this misinformation.

So you know, bob. Oil isn’t made out of dinosaurs, it’s made up mostly of decomposed diatoms, algae, zooplankton, and other microorganisms, transformed under heat and pressure.
It is a finite resource.
If we burn it all, it’s CO2 emissions alone would cause an estimated approximately 200 ft of sea level rise (and likely near total planetary extinction).

PS- shouldn’t it be “The oranges of oil falsely defined in 1892”?

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

Ignoring your total ignorance of recent history to point out, Joes favorability rating on his state of the Union address was 78%.
78% Bob. 30% higher than Trump’s best poll.
Failure Trump never got 50% approval on anything, and today rates around 30% and falling fast as he supports Putin’s invasion and hates on America, as his obvious attempts to subvert democracy and steal the presidency are exposed in courts, as his total failures as a businessman are exposed through the courts.

This is you pick. This is you guy? I can only hope he’s the 2024 candidate. It won’t be a blue wave, it won’t be a blue tsunami, it will be a blue sea level rise…and likely a red demise.
ROTFLMFAHS! So gratifying watching your anti American hate group lose its power.

Yeah, 20000ft is roughly 6km. The air density is about 1/2 but from what I can determine that doesn't equal 1/2 air resistance, but something more like 90-95% air resistance of sea level.

Having said that, I haven't studied aerospace engineering, so I might be getting the details wrong.

There are definitely some minor advantages to building on a mountainside, but I don't think they outweigh logistical difficulties under normal circumstances.

The idea has a good bit of scifi (and probably scientific) history behind it though. I believe Heinlein used a railgun cargo launcher from the moon in Moon is a Harsh Mistress and a mountainside sled rocket in one of his earlier books.

Project Rho is a great resource for hard scifi and rocketry research for writers. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php is the link to a page that discusses maglev, railguns and rocketsleds.

I’m thinking Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador…at over 20000 ft, it’s peak it the farthest from the center of the earth (while not being the highest above sea level thanks to the equatorial bulge).
Sure, it doesn’t remove air resistance or friction, but halving it, even cutting it by 1/3 is a massive leap in efficiency and negates much of the extreme engineering and materials needed to overcome the friction….plus, as you mentioned, there’s the rotational speed advantage from launching on the equator vs Florida.
Also, while extremely minor, there’s also a slight reduction in gravitational pull at those heights. A joule saved is a joule earned!

Using a mountainside might help with structural integrity, but it's not likely to give much air resistance advantage if I'm reading the math correctly. The 5 highest peaks in the US are all in Alaska and and range from just under 5km to just over 6km. Commercial jets using air resistance/density for lift fly at about 10km and even at 38km aerodynamic lift still carries 98% of the weight of the plane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line)

Air density is halved at 5km compared to sea level, but air resistance doesn't diminish as quickly (due to it being multiplied by velocity squared and drag coefficient), and only becomes irrelevant (for short-term purposes) around 100km at the Karman Line.

If we had a 5km peak in Florida, the lack of logistical costs might make the benefits worth it, and if we could build on one of Equador's 5km peaks, then there's the further advantage of equatorial location for optimal rotational advantage (part of the reason we launch from South Florida)

People have had this type of discussion about lots of things, like washing hands (yes even doctors before operations), smoking cigarettes, or letting excrement flow down busy streets.

Now sometimes it wasnt easy, but if civilizations eventually built sewers and aqueducts maybe we can somehow stop spewing poisonous gasses into the air in large volumes.

Its difficult to find immediate motivation to act, especially for us self entitled pricks, I totally understand. I live over 300 meters above sea-level.

So strange to see Bob posting evidence of climate change since he denies it exists.

An important thing to note is most man made lakes are constantly filling with silt, and that’s not taken into account when determining %. If Oroville is 27% full, but 15% full of silt, it’s only 12% full of water. The older the lake, the more silt has displaced water and lowered actual capacity. Lake Mead is estimated to have 60-90 ft of silt, and based on water level above sea level is about 30% of capacity…but half or more may be silt. As bad as things look, they’re actually worse.

Edit: I would like to see large projects started removing that silt from the dry reservoirs, extending their lifespan and capacity without taking them out of service to do it. Crisis + opportunity = Crisortunity!

Derp.
I've seen dozens of reports of increases in the 1000-1500% range, and millions just dropped with nothing....but even your lowball +30% per year is still impossible to absorb and insane increases.

Water damage not hurricane related include flooding from sea level rise and more powerful storms outside hurricane season.

You ijit....more and stronger hurricanes ARE a component of global warming, as are flood events not from hurricanes, stronger storms, and higher flood tides.

Dummy.... Of the top 5 years with the most hurricanes on record since 1851, 4 were since 2005. Absolutely there are more hurricanes on average since 2000. You need to learn how to read a graph, and to not cherry pick data by discarding any you don't like or stopping the tally before major changes started. More dishonest Bob.

If it's from the dollar dropping (no where near 50%, the dollar index went from 110 -90 since 2000, CPI from $1722-$2634) why didn't they explode under Bush when it dropped as low as 72, and why didn't they drop when Obama brought that back to 102?

Answer: because you're totally full of it, as usual.
The company's themselves say it's from higher payouts due to more, stronger storms causing more damage....Many abandoning the market for other states....not because the dollar is weak. That's nonsense.

Remember that time you said if climate change and sea level rise were real, insurance in places like Florida would skyrocket or disappear. Guess what.

Not only has it skyrocketed like I told you was happening back then, but many companies have now just left places like Florida altogether because it costs them far too much to payout over flooding and extreme weather events that are now regular occurrences.

My guess....you'll ignore what you claimed, ignore what the companies say, and ignore the data that's undeniable and blame liberals for faking the insurance fiasco and faking constant repeated flooding and extreme weather decimating many areas, especially coastal and low lying areas....or you'll just deny things are demonstrably worsening.

What I know for certain, you won't admit you were/are wrong, and won't accept any responsibility for dragging your feet and obstructing vital progress with unending stubborn denial of reality and making the situation exponentially worse and the time to mitigate it exponentially shorter.

So I think they are saying that the center of the earth is always changing in relation to the sea levels?

Guess those will be popping up when the sea levels rises.

I don't have time today, but if memory serves, ar4 temperature/ sea level prediction was 30-60% higher than ar3, ar5 less of a change, but still higher than ar4, and yesterday it went up another 10% with the intermediate report, expected to rise again in the 2021 report. I found it by accident and can't find it this morning, and I'm out of free time already today.

It's the factual, scientifically likely outcome. There is no "right" approach, indeed there's no working solution at all.

Yes, different again on two NOAA sites. They don't make it easy to find and compare accurately reported data.

I meant it was odd because they listed the 2018 data as if it was the highest readings, I understand it's not a constant rise.

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.