Is Thailand Value for money

[MaeJoMTB]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

HThere is some interesting work being done in Bonnie Dune California (pop. about 65) re; wind.  A guy there has a team building a wind harnessing contraption which would work high in the stratosphere, where 70 mph winds blow nearly non-stop. The problem is not the technology (it's been proven), it's the safety issue re; air traffic.  If they can figure a way around that, it's an intriguing way to harness energy.

Wind farms and Solar cells are BS of the highest order.

Nuclear power would be the sensible way forward, but the green agenda rejects all reason.

[owl sees all]

6 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

North Africa is not far from Europe, in terms of transmission wires.  N.Africa is mostly desert with lots of sun. Solar farms could be set up there, though I prefer passive rather than PV.  Probably the main 3 reasons that concept has not been taken seriously:

I'm not suggesting to build a solar farm as big as Spain. Solar panel technology is still an infant.

 

With energy I believe in horses for courses. The UK might not have that much sun but it has waves and tides. (Liverpool and district could be powered by Liverpool docks alone.) Thailand has sun in plenty.

 

Money needs to be invested - for the future of mankind - instead of the wealth being horded by the Bankers and the Vatican.

 

At Uni' one of the 'must read' authors was Fred Hoyle. Now after 50 years I think differently than I did then.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Just Weird said:

I got as far as your new word, "denialists", which confirmed that there was no point in either taking your quote seriously or even reading further.

A denialist is a person who denies that there is such a thing as anthropogenic global warming. No, this isn't about that. This is about the fact that an eminent scientist assembled a team of first rate researchers to question the assertion that the global surface temperature on the earth was getting warmer. And instead of disproving it, he confirmed it. And instead of acknowledging it, denialist web sites just dropped it down the memory hole. 

[ilostmypassword]

34 minutes ago, MaeJoMTB said:

Wind farms and Solar cells are BS of the highest order.

Nuclear power would be the sensible way forward, but the green agenda rejects all reason.

Do you actively insulate yourself from the news? 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-price-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12620920/us-solar-power-costs-falling

 

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/moodys-falling-wind-energy-costs-threaten-midwestern-coal-plants/438759/

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/19/12549516/wind-power-2015

 

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, TimTang said:

As soon as you use the word "denialist" I refuse to debate with you. If you were debating the weight of an electron with a scientist and were confident that you had confirmed the TRUE mass, would you use ad hominem insults to address anyone that didn't agree with you? Or would you debate the subject like a gentleman with the understanding that you or both of you might be wrong?

Denialist is now a bad word? If I used a qualifying adjective like lying or dishonest or ignorant etc.. But by itself, no, denialist is not a word  of insult.. Nice excuse for not being able to face hard facts. 

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, MaeJoMTB said:

That may well be, but  humans played no part in the climate changes, and didn't have the ability to alter the events.

More likely sun activity that causes the changes, and supposedly the sun is going into a quiet cycle, so now we can look forward to a period global cooling. Time to worry about sea levels falling, and putting up taxes to fund the building of more coal power stations.

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110614-sun-hibernation-solar-cycle-sunspots-space-science/

 

"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity. The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715."

 

Goody, more frost fairs.

While it's true that there is an effect on climate from solar cycles, it's also true that from about 1974 something happened to swamp whatever effect solar cycles ordinarily have. Temperatures have been rising steadily regardless of the solar cycles.In fact, the sun has been showing a slight cooling trend for the last 35 years or so. Despite which average global temperatures have been rising.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

The SkS Kidz site is a favourite among activists because it tells them everything they  want to hear.

 

In the rational world, it is regarded as about as credible as the Sunday Sport, which puts out headlines like "WWII bomber found on Moon!!!"

 

Citing SkS Kidz as a source does nothing but undermine your position.

 

This kind of libel directed at SkS is completely devoid of any checkable content. In fact, anyone who reads SkS knows that it is meticulously footnoted with citations from prestigious scientific journals. 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

I find this idea that the ice will be gone by 2040 hard to believe. 

  I lived in the high Arctic for 2 years. We had to measure the thickness once a week,using  an auger.. It was 10  to 12 feet thick. Not all measuring is done by satellite We lived in the most northern area ice breakers go to in the world.The ice breaker usually had a 2 week window in August when it could break through and deliver her goods and get out before  it would be frozen in.

  In my humble opinion we do have global warming but the Arctic ice will be here long after 2040.

How long ago was that?

[lovelomsak]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

How long ago was that?

More than 45 years ago.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

More than 45 years ago.

So, have you looked at any graphs about what's happened since then. This one which has to do with total ice mass covers the period from 1980 to 2015. As you can see, things have changed a lot

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

[TimTang]

I think the best answer to all our problem would be that all of us just drive electric cars, use electric to heat our houses and not really be too concerned where the electricity is actually coming from.

[balo]

Ice age phenomenon is an about every 100,000 year cycle from Cold to Warm  &  Warm to Cold,,,,Guess what Sherlock,,,,,  It's Getting a bit Warmer now.Don't worry it will cool down again a bit but we won't see that unless you want to hang around for an other 100,000 years.   

I agree, this is a cycle been going on for millions of years . In the 15th century the climate were milder in Northern Europe than it is today. A new ice age will start and it will get colder again, maybe in a few hundred years.

[owl sees all]

29 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

In fact, the sun has been showing a slight cooling trend for the last 35 years or so.

This will be music to the ears of NK's leader Kim-ju-un. He has made it known that he is planning a manned sun landing. It was pointed out to him that the sun is very hot so he suggested they go in the winter when it's cooler.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, balo said:

 

I agree, this is a cycle been going on for millions of years . In the 15th century the climate were milder in Northern Europe than it is today. A new ice age will start and it will get colder again, maybe in a few hundred years.

 

You don't seem to get it. It's not about the fact that the earth is on a rebound from the Ice age is is getting warmer. It's about the rate of change. To follow your line of reasoning, , there is no significant difference between an interest rate of 1 percent and an interest rate of 25%.

[lovelomsak]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So, have you looked at any graphs about what's happened since then. This one which has to do with total ice mass covers the period from 1980 to 2015. As you can see, things have changed a lot

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

I have not looked at any graghs . Most like this one tell me nothing. What is this saying as far as ice depth,or thickness. Probably just is a graph to show rate. So what. The rate is increasing but probably still very thick ice and it will be thick for a long time to go. Now if it showed thickness change over that period of time I may look at it.

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

I have not looked at any graghs . Most like this one tell me nothing. What is this saying as far as ice depth,or thickness. Probably just is a graph to show rate. So what. The rate is increasing but probably still very thick ice and it will be thick for a long time to go. Now if it showed thickness change over that period of time I may look at it.

It is about thickness. If it was about extent (surface area) that would be a different question.

[balo]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You don't seem to get it. It's not about the fact that the earth is on a rebound from the Ice age is is getting warmer. It's about the rate of change. To follow your line of reasoning, , there is no significant difference between an interest rate of 1 percent and an interest rate of 25%.

 

You dont know how the rate of change was 1 million years ago because no scientists were around to tell you. The activity on the sun is also a factor into this. To blame it all on human activity is wrong. 

[joeyg]

On 10/25/2017 at 9:40 AM, boomerangutang said:

Ok, here I go again.  It's like trying to explain to a 5 year old - what happens when he tips over his glass of milk.

 

We're not talking about climate for the past 4.5 billion years.   The climate issue at hand pertains to now and the ensuing 100 to 300 years.  A tiny fraction of the age of Earth.

 

People are overpopulating this planet.  They're living everywhere possible - even on landfills and in swamps and toxic zones.  In some cities, there are over 25,000 people per sq.Km.

 

1/4 of mankind is living within a meter of sea level, including half of Thailand.  A warmer planet = melting ice.  Melting ice = higher sea levels.  A warmer planet also = bigger storms and increased desertification, but don't let all that give you an aneurysm. Perhaps I'm putting out too much info for a simple mind to comprehend.   

https://www.fastcompany.com/3016331/think-the-world-is-crowded-you-could-fit-the-entire-human-race-in-new-zealand 

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, balo said:

 

You dont know how the rate of change was 1 million years ago because no scientists were around to tell you. The activity on the sun is also a factor into this. To blame it all on human activity is wrong. 

As I've pointed out, and you apparently ignored, the sun's activity has actually been in decline the last 35 years or so. And whatever effect the solar cycles had on climate was swamped by something else starting in about 1974

I guess you've just killed the theory of evolution too, since no scientists were around to observe species arise. But, like using fossils, there is such a thing as temperature reconstruction of the past,::

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

[Just Weird]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

No they're not.  Get informed.   On the other hand, if you're determined to be anti-science, then no amount of scientific data is going to sway you from your fixed opinion.

"...if you're determined to be anti-science..."

I'm very pro-science, the real science, though, not your long debunked myths.  And as far as scientific data is concerned you have none that can authenticate all your assertions.  My opinion is far from "fixed", it can change with evidence to justify a change which is why I no longer agree with you and the other dogmatic members of the 'climate change' club.

 

Isn't it odd that those who refuse to sway and continue to beat their inaccurate data drum so loudly, sticking to the terrible racket they make, regardless of evidence to the contrary, are always so keen to accuse those who disagree with them of being unswayable?  Ironic, and hypocritical.

 

 

[Just Weird]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

A denialist is a person who denies that there is such a thing as anthropogenic global warming. No, this isn't about that. This is about the fact that an eminent scientist assembled a team of first rate researchers to question the assertion that the global surface temperature on the earth was getting warmer. And instead of disproving it, he confirmed it. And instead of acknowledging it, denialist web sites just dropped it down the memory hole. 

Yes, I do know what it means.  I was referring to your bringing in a new version of 'denier' into the discussion, almost as though it gave some extra credence to your flawed arguments, when denier has always done an admirable job of describing someone against whom your team cannot put up a good enough argument.

 

Unfortunately, those eminent scientists and "first rate researchers" (what's one of those?) got it wrong, and it wasn't the first time that had happened; there is no significant, measurable warming of the earth's temperature and has not been for the best part of 2 decades.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Just Weird said:

Yes, I do know what it means.  I was referring to your bringing in a new version of 'denier' into the discussion, almost as though it gave some extra credence to your flawed arguments, when denier has always done an admirable job of describing someone against whom your team cannot put up a good enough argument.

 

Unfortunately, those eminent scientists and "first rate researchers" (what's one of those?) got it wrong, and it wasn't the first time that had happened; there is no significant, measurable warming of the earth's temperature and has not been for the best part of 2 decades.

And once again you cite no sources. And no doubt you will continue avoiding the question of Richard Muller.

[Just Weird]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And once again you cite no sources. And no doubt you will continue avoiding the question of Richard Muller.

No need for me to cite sources, what I  said is fact, not opinion.

 

The Muller question? I wasn't aware that there was a Muller question, what's so special about Muller's research?  Just because you describe him with what seems to be your favourite word, "eminent", does make him right.

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

what's so special about Muller's research? 

See Post #52

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

No need for me to cite sources, what I  said is fact, not opinion.

 

The Muller question? I wasn't aware that there was a Muller question, what's so special about Muller's research?  Just because you describe him with what seems to be your favourite word, "eminent", does make him right.

I guess you'll never know since you apparently refuse to look it up. Willful ignorance is certainly one way to keep your opinions intact.

[TimTang]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

You don't seem to get it. It's not about the fact that the earth is on a rebound from the Ice age is is getting warmer. It's about the rate of change. To follow your line of reasoning, , there is no significant difference between an interest rate of 1 percent and an interest rate of 25%.

"It depends on what the meaning of is is" Bill Clinton

 

You must be a big Clinton fan.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, TimTang said:

"It depends on what the meaning of is is" Bill Clinton

 

You must be a big Clinton fan.

No, but I am of Pavlov. And that is the only way to understand what might have prompted your comment since there is clearly no causal or logical relation between what I wrote and what Clinton said. Nice way to expose your intellectual bankruptcy.

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

No need for me to cite sources, what I  said is fact, not opinion.

 

The Muller question? I wasn't aware that there was a Muller question, what's so special about Muller's research?  Just because you describe him with what seems to be your favourite word, "eminent", does make him right.

"No need for me to cite sources, what I  said is fact, not opinion."

 

Wow!  I can't think of anything you could have posted that would better destroy your credibility for a rational debate.  You got it exactly backwards.

 

You don't have to cite sources for opinion, you are the source for your opinion.  If you want your facts to be taken seriously, you need sources.

[balo]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I guess you've just killed the theory of evolution too, since no scientists were around to observe species arise. But, like using fossils, there is such a thing as temperature reconstruction of the past,::

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

 

Interesting website from Nasa , but they do not know enough about the past yet , they are trying .  So you can't say it's factual until they can prove it. 

 

The evolution theory is easy to understand , just dig up some bones. It's a bigger challenge with the climate .  

 

"The paleoclimate group at GISS is working to try to decode these records using the latest generation of numerical models of the atmosphere and ocean circulation. In those models, we have included most of the physics necessary to simulate the distribution of δ¹⁸O in the oceans and the atmosphere. In addition, we have developed models of foram ecology that allow us to estimate at what depths in the ocean and at what season the carbonate forms on average."

Edited October 26, 2017 by balo

[MaeJoMTB]

1 hour ago, balo said:

The evolution theory is easy to understand , just dig up some bones. It's a bigger challenge with the climate .  

But it's only a theory ........ not proven fact.