Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (1567606)	10/24/2025 10:54:47 AM
From: combjelly	2 Recommendations Recommended By Eric pocotrader Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570368

You do realize X-Files was a TV show? An open mind is a good thing. However, if it is open too far, your brain falls out. A single photo does not prove anything. If for no other reason, the oceans are not smooth and uniformly at the same level, it is lumpy for a variety of reasons, including currents and gravitational anomalies. But lets take that photo. Notice how the sandy area along the water has narrowed considerably. Now the reason why you don't have vegetation growing to the water line in a saltwater regime is, well the saltwater. Typically when you get close to the coast and there is sand, you have a layer of freshwater on top of the saltwater due to density differences. The upshot is that the vegetation, which has limited salt tolerance, won't grow where there isn't that freshwater layer. So no vegetation usually means it is too close to sea level. So there was something that changed. Given the width of the isthmus is pretty close in the two pictures, it is apparent that there was some sort of sand nourishment going on. With that in mind, I did a short Google search and found this. dailytelegraph.com.au Apparently, the isthmus had been degraded by human activity, interfering with the natural sand nourishment by the river system. Human activity has stripped the natural vegetation which trapped sand blowing off the beach. That stopped in the 1950s. Not to mention, they built a jetty which is a way to artificially encourage sand nourishment. Without a rise in sea level, that isthmus likely would be wider than it is now. That it isn't noticeably so, despite the obvious change in elevation(see the green stripe down the middle now?) it isn't wider. If you had a background in oceanography, you'd be able to understand that picture. Since you don't, you didn't. Because you don't understand many things, you wind up concocting conspiracy theories. Much like a hunter-gather concocted spirits and magic to explain things.

To: maceng2 who wrote (1567606)	10/24/2025 12:46:37 PM
From: Wharf Rat	3 Recommendations Recommended By Eric pocotrader rdkflorida2 Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570368

Fact Check: Water level photos don't disprove climate change Just a few days before Earth Day 2021, a Facebook post claimed to show climate change is a hoax based on two photos taken a century apart. The post reads, "99 years of sea level rise — Palm Beach Sydney," and includes images labeled as being from 1917 and 2016. They show the water level at a similar point both years.