.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
ExpatOilWorker
-
Posts
7,699 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by ExpatOilWorker
-
-
Just now, JimmyJ said:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/world/polar-bears-arctic-climate-change/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html
Etc., etc.
Plenty of facts, but no problem - ExpatOilWorker says it will NOT melt.
As someone mentioned in the thread today, there is not a debate over this in the scientific community. It is fact.
People can deny facts, but scientific truths remain true whether people disagree or agree.
How do you explain that we have 400,000 years core samples from Greenland and 800,000 years old core samples from Antarctica?
Guess what, they didn't melt!
-
14 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:
Doesn't if seem, sometimes, like we're explaining these things to 2nd graders?
Yeah, it is funny and you still don't get it.
43 minutes ago, oilinki said:The rising sea levels fcom from different factors.
1) Ice on landmasses. Practically Greenland, Antarctica and northern glaziers. Melted water adds directly to the sea levels.
When ice melts, the pressure on the ground releases, which rises the land which was previously underneath the ice. This can been seen happening in Scandinavia, Canada and Russia.
2) While melting the ice on top of the sea doesn't add any water to the sea, it still rises the sea levels.
This is because ice is a pretty great reflector of Sun's radiation. When this reflector is removed, the dark sea is an excellent absorber of the radiation. This heats the oceans and when water gets hotter, it expands. While water expands only tiny amounts locally, the oceans are huge.
Why would it melt? A more moist climate could also add more snowfall to the arctic regions.
There were several warmer (than now) periods in the past 400,000 years, still the polar caps did NOT melt then and will NOT melt now.
-
27 minutes ago, oilinki said:
The rising sea levels fcom from different factors.
1) Ice on landmasses. Practically Greenland, Antarctica and northern glaziers. Melted water adds directly to the sea levels.
When ice melts, the pressure on the ground releases, which rises the land which was previously underneath the ice. This can been seen happening in Scandinavia, Canada and Russia.
2) While melting the ice on top of the sea doesn't add any water to the sea, it still rises the sea levels.
This is because ice is a pretty great reflector of Sun's radiation. When this reflector is removed, the dark sea is an excellent absorber of the radiation. This heats the oceans and when water gets hotter, it expands. While water expands only tiny amounts locally, the oceans are huge.
Back when I went to school we learned two important things, science and the ability to think for ourselves.
From 0 degree to 4 degree C water actually contract, but heck why let a bit of fact get in the way of the big propaganda machine.
-
18 hours ago, LGMV said:
thanks Worgeordie.
Question: streaming direct from PC etc seems simple, why do people bother with TV boxes?
The movie box have a remote control similar to a DVD player, so you can easily pause, forward, adjust volume and don't have to fight a mouse and keyboard from your sofa.
-
On 11/17/2017 at 3:03 PM, Morch said:
What is included under "Iran will never back down"? I don't think there's any serious intentions of invading Iran or subjugating it. Most of the political (as distinctive from religious differences) issues raised relate to Iran's ambitions regarding the scope of its regional influence. What the Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region fear is not a wholesale takeover by Iran - but the disruption of their countries and rule, by Iranian support for various dissenting elements (usually Shia). There's a good case for such groups being discriminated against, but being the ME, casting stones is tricky.
I think it would take a whole lot more than what we're seeing up to now, in order for Saudi Arabia and Iran to actually come to blows. For Saudi Arabia's part - all that hardware bought form the USA is no substitute for numbers, battle experience and fighting spirit. Going directly against Iran, without massive backup is bound to end in tears. For Iran, there's no particular incentive to change its ongoing successful strategy, which relies on avoiding a confrontation, plus direct attacks on Saudi Arabia are still likely to be taken negatively by Muslims countries.
The USA is unable to play a mediating role between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its stance vs. Iran hasn't been neutral for decades, so the best one may expect are efforts to prevent an escalation by leveraging Saudi Arabia. Whether or not the USA still possess enough clout to do so, is a good question. That USA regional foreign policy (which wasn't clear or much of a success) is even more messed up under Trump's administration, makes it less likely that the USA will play a constructive, positive role on this front.
The peacemaker role the USA may (or may not) play is more related to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. To a certain degree, this involves Saudi Arabia's participation and goodwill. I would be surprised if some of the discussions held do not tie future peace prospects with one or the other sort of mutual support.
I don't know that Israel, as a whole, is "pushing for a confrontation with Iran be any means possible". It may describe Israel's Prime Minister's (and some of his right wing cronies) point of view, but not something unanimously supported by Israel's military and security chiefs. That many recognize such a confrontation might emerge is not quite the same as seeking it.
Very good post. What role do you think China could play? They seem to be getting more and more involved in the region.
-
Install a wall mounted toilet and join the drain from the already existing toilet, assuming they are facing the same wall.
-
Maybe China wants to rule Saudi, just as they might have a installed their little puppet in Zimbabwe.
Maybe China have a plan after all with their military base in Djibouti.
-
6 hours ago, Grouse said:
Car emissions have dramatically reduced particularly COx though NOx will also come down. Electric cars are here now.
The idea of carbon taxes on air tickets is a good one though if air travel ceased completely it would only reduce carbon emissions by 5%. I would price low cost airlines out of existence and make formal dress compulsory on international flights ?
We should be investing in nuclear power and making coal and lignite unaffordable by carbon taxes
Major forest replanting is key as is modifying farming techniques.
Finally carbon sequestration on an industrial scale is needed; maybe electrolysing sea water as part of a process to produce carbonates
Nice ideas, but all projections points to higher oil/gas production and once it is produced, it will certainly be used and end up as CO2.
-
5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:
When I say nothing is being done, I know some things are being done, but they won't make ANY difference at all to the ultimate outcome, IMO.
A massive program of new nuclear plants, carbon sequestration, electric train lines and banning mass tourism using aircraft, PLUS immediate steps to reduce population by eliminating child payments, allowing free abortion on demand, free contraceptives and voluntary euthanasia might make a difference, if it isn't already too late and the tipping point hasn't been crossed.
The Internet is using more energy the all airlines combined. Should we also ban the Internet?
Already, data centres have mushroomed from virtually nothing 10 years ago to consuming about 3 per cent of the global electricity supply and accounting for about 2 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. That gives it the same carbon footprint as the airline industry.
-
3 hours ago, heybruce said:
A newspaper published once a week in magazine format? http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers?print_region=76980
Where are these issues dated November 16 and 18? I didn't find them on the above web-page.
18th: https://www.economist.com/printedition/2017-11-18
16th: http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers
Same issue.
-
11 hours ago, sanemax said:
No, Iran paid the UK 450 Million quid to buy some Cheifton tanks in the 1970s , then came the Iranian revolution and an arms embargo and the UK could not deliver the tanks .
The UK didnt not either deliver the tanks or return the money , so, the UK should either deliver those tanks or return the money
Those pesky Brits want their cake and eat it also?
Iran should have the right to seize UK assets to recover their loss.
On top of that the UK made Libya pay $1.5 billion for the Lockerbie bombing. Something smell fishy here.
-
10 hours ago, heybruce said:
You don't read news magazines, do you?
The Economist is a newspaper, not a magazine, but you actually have to read it to figure this out.
-
8 hours ago, heybruce said:
The current issue of Economist is dated November 11th to 17th 2017, with articles showing the date of the last day the issue is current, in this case November 17. This is a common practice among many weekly news magazines.
The Economist is a newspaper, not a magazine!
Anyway, they do seem to be a bit casual with dates, the current issue is both dated November 16th and 18th at their web page.
-
7 minutes ago, Grouse said:
Wise words from the Economist as always
That is news from the future and dated "Nov 18th 2017", 2 days from now.
-
How can UK owe money to Iran over a disputed arms deal?
Did Iran sell weapon to the UK?
-
6 minutes ago, Here It Is said:
The polar bears seem to be doing okay, so nothing to worry about.
You need to worry. Soon the propaganda machine will shift gear and we all have to care about the poor sad Puffins. For them, life is a cliffhanger.
-
51 minutes ago, Grouse said:
I often complain that ice in bars is not cold enough. -22C is not bad but often it is -1C. I want more than latent heat of melting to cool my drink. Idiots don't understand
The -22 C ice will give you 13.25% more cooling effect. You could of course also just ask for more ice.
-
On 10/22/2017 at 9:47 PM, boomerangutang said:
To me, one of the most convincing stats pointing to a warming world is. . . . . .
>>> glaciers ww are receding and their remnants are thinner than they've been historically.
There are a plethora of other indications (of a warming world), but the receding glaciers are rather convincing. In case anyone needs a refresher: ice melts when temps go up.
Not necessary, it doesn't melt when temperature goes from minus 20 C to minus 10 C.
-
4 minutes ago, malibukid said:
stupid waste of money
It is not wasted, it is invested.
-
The major brands usually have some sort of price incentive during the cars-shows at Impact or BITEC. We just happen to be buying at that time and got 20,000 off the list price + floor-mats, 12 month insurance, tinted film for the windows and some other small add ons.
-
1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:
I dont get it, a record number of condo developments and 90% sold and somehow that means the sky is falling, based on a vague "empty condos" argument.
There isnt much data available in Thailand for real estate in general. Pick a condo block anywhere, nobody except the developer knows how many have sold or for what amounts they changed hands. After they sell, nobody knows the occupancy of the condo, lived in, rented out, holiday house, Russian Mafia laundering money, speculating for resale etc.
I cant see that anyone can give a definitive assessment of the Thai condo market as the data is just not available.
Bangkok Post had an article a while ago, where they used data from EGAT and occupancy were based on a certain electricity usage. The data is out there, just hard to find.
-
"Jungle", enjoyable and based on a true story.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, EcigAmateur said:
Thank you, but I didn't know that a CLS had a so small engine, just like the C-class.
Is it an old model ? Now all CLS have 2143 engine.
CLS 250 d Exclusive 2,143 4,090,000 1,023,000 40,900 1,431,500
CLS 250 d AMG Premium 2,143 4,690,000 1,173,000 46,900 1,641,500
CLS 250 d Shooting Brake AMG Premium 2,143 4,790,000 1,198,000 47,900 1,580,700
CLS is a very nice car. Even as a committed BMW fan, I must admit the BMW 6-series is no match for the selection of CLS Mercedes offer in Thailand.
It is interesting that the CLS350 with the 3.5 l engine and CLS55 with the 5.5 l engine are no longer available in Thailand. Probably because of the new tax structure.
-
On 11/11/2017 at 8:14 PM, RuamRudy said:
I think this is a good analogy - imagine going to a restaurant with your friends and agreeing to order a big spread of food for you all to share. After you have had the starter, you then decide to leave, but want to pay only for the starter that you have eaten. Your friends, on the other hand, point out that the mains were ordered collectively, on the assumption that you would all eat them. It is only reasonable, is it not, that you pay for the food you ordered even if you subsequently decide that you don't want to eat it?
Defiant Hun Sen tells U.S. to cut all aid to Cambodia
in Cambodia News
Posted
Interesting article in Bangkok post today (20/11/17), that countries heavily under Chinese influence, North Korea, Pakistan and Cambodia aren't really doing that well.
Better stay friendly with Uncle Sam Mr. Hun Sen.