'Worse than Voldemort': Global students' strike targets climate change

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 11:03 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Off you go then, lead by example.

I do.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 4:44 PM, mikebike said:

Regarding climate change, it is FAR more practical to demand systemic change. This is not a 1972 public service advert and picking up trash ain't gonna do shizzle.

and exactly WHAT systemic change are you referring to?

All I've heard is "too much CO2" and sod all practical affordable acceptable solutions.

Picking up garbage on the other hand benefits us all.

If they all pledged to be childless in their lives I'd be all for that- too many people in the world already, which is what has caused most of our problems.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 4:49 PM, Nyezhov said:

Thats for sure. They have their noses stuck in their phones, can't write a coherent sentence, never read a book, live in a virtual world instead of a real one and have problems figuring out their own sexuality as they smoke weed and post tripe on the net from Mommy's basement.

 

Its not that they dont want to, its just that they are intellectually vacuous and incapable of hard work due to their narcissistic sheltered upbringing.

 

Your world dude, not mine. Im happy.

Plus, their most annoying characteristic is thinking that they know everything, when in fact they don't know enough to know they don't know much at all.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 11:27 AM, Prissana Pescud said:

If you do not understand that excess CO2 is not a pollutant you have lost the plot already.  Excess of every element that supports the world global capacity to absorb it is total lunacy.  You cut down all the trees that absorb CO2  and you reduce the ability of the world to balance the excess CO2 and therefore cannot release the oxygen we all need.  Sorry, you are a climate change critic. And you critics are in retreat as science makes you fools.

High temperature incinerators are fine. If coal could be burned in the same way, half the problem is solved.

But who wants to produce a neutral pollution coal factory?

How many of the "demonstrators" carried placards saying stop cutting down trees? How many of them want to boycott all products with palm oil? How many of them even understand the relationship between the soap they use and the massive destruction of carbon sinks in SEA?

[Prissana Pescud]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How many of the "demonstrators" carried placards saying stop cutting down trees? How many of them want to boycott all products with palm oil? How many of them even understand the relationship between the soap they use and the massive destruction of carbon sinks in SEA?

Yes. What you say is true, in fact everything you say is alarmingly true.

But it is their future and they have made a start to protest why they may not have one.

And we, did nothing to protect the massive tree felling, we buy the palm oil products.

 We created the problems they are faced with.

And you want them carrying placards to denigrate us.

 No, they just want a change to ensure their existence.

All power to them, they are educated, not radical and just want us to change our ways

so they have a future. They are making a protest start as our generation has not. Good on them, everyone should climb on board.

[bristolboy]

On 3/24/2019 at 12:06 PM, VincentRJ said:

I've mentioned it before, probably several times. There is no uniform global warming. It's a theoretical, mathematical average of temperatures. During any relatively short period of a few decades, some parts of the globe will get colder, whilst some parts will get warmer, and other parts will retain approximately the same average temperature, taking into consideration the normal variation in weather patterns.

 

 

Just more bloviating on your part.

 

Where did you publish the results of your research? The Journal of “Because I Said so”? You could mention it 100 times and it would still be a falsehood.  Yours is more of the usual nonsense we get from denialists.. At this point there is simply overwhelming evidence that global temperatures are on average increasing. The distinguished physicist and former climate change skeptic, Richard Mueller, was funded by denialists to set up a dream team of scientists to disprove global warming. .Using billions of data points. they sliced up the data statistically in every meaningful way possible to accommodate denialist objections, It ended up massively disproving their claims. The globe was warming at just as climatologists had been saying all along.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

 

What is just as damning to your allegation is the question of record breaking temperatures.  if in fact it was the case that the average of all temperature changes globally was zero then we would expect that records around the globe would be set equally for high and low temperatures,. In the first decade of the 20^th century heat records set outpaced cold records by a ratio of 2 to 1.

http://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps

 

 

And the ratio is getting higher. Massively higher.

 “What if you compile the past 8 years, from 2011 to 2018 worth of temperature records: 2,529 hottest versus 226 coldest temperatures on record. “https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/01/31/so-far-2019-has-set-33-hottest-and-0-coldest-temperature-records/#1a3d5800505e

Just to clear, that’s a ratio of 11-1!

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 6:13 PM, Prissana Pescud said:

Yes. What you say is true, in fact everything you say is alarmingly true.

But it is their future and they have made a start to protest why they may not have one.

And we, did nothing to protect the massive tree felling, we buy the palm oil products.

 We created the problems they are faced with.

And you want them carrying placards to denigrate us.

 No, they just want a change to ensure their existence.

All power to them, they are educated, not radical and just want us to change our ways

so they have a future. They are making a protest start as our generation has not. Good on them, everyone should climb on board.

What I find alarming is that they apparently believe walking around with placards will change anything. This is because they have been misled by their teachers, IMO.

Action changes things, demonstrations about Voldemort are pointless. If they want to change things, stop using products with palm oil in them, walk to school or use the bus instead of going in a car. Don't holiday overseas. So many things they could do, and they do none of them. A day off school just for fun.

It'll be forgotten in a month.

[Prissana Pescud]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What I find alarming is that they apparently believe walking around with placards will change anything. This is because they have been misled by their teachers, IMO.

Action changes things, demonstrations about Voldemort are pointless. If they want to change things, stop using products with palm oil in them, walk to school or use the bus instead of going in a car. Don't holiday overseas. So many things they could do, and they do none of them. A day off school just for fun.

It'll be forgotten in a month.

Parents take their kids to school because too many paedophiles operate unopposed in our communities.

Placard carrying people stopped the Vietnam war.

Why not travel overseas, it is an education. It shows how some countries do not need coal to exist.

It is up to governments to prohibit the importation of palm oil.

They are the future, not you, if you care about your kids - get aboard.  

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Just more bloviating on your part.

 

Where did you publish the results of your research? The Journal of “Because I Said so”? You could mention it 100 times and it would still be a falsehood.  Yours is more of the usual nonsense we get from denialists.. At this point there is simply overwhelming evidence that global temperatures are on average increasing. The distinguished physicist and former climate change skeptic, Richard Mueller, was funded by denialists to set up a dream team of scientists to disprove global warming. .Using billions of data points. they sliced up the data statistically in every meaningful way possible to accommodate denialist objections, It ended up massively disproving their claims. The globe was warming at just as climatologists had been saying all along.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

 

What is just as damning to your allegation is the question of record breaking temperatures.  if in fact it was the case that the average of all temperature changes globally was zero then we would expect that records around the globe would be set equally for high and low temperatures,. In the first decade of the 20^th century heat records set outpaced cold records by a ratio of 2 to 1.

http://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps

 

 

And the ratio is getting higher. Massively higher.

 “What if you compile the past 8 years, from 2011 to 2018 worth of temperature records: 2,529 hottest versus 226 coldest temperatures on record. “https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/01/31/so-far-2019-has-set-33-hottest-and-0-coldest-temperature-records/#1a3d5800505e

Just to clear, that’s a ratio of 11-1!

Whatever I say or write about climate change is a result of my interpretation of other scientists' interpretation of the published evidence and data in the research carried out in the 30 or so different disciplines related to climatology.

 

I never expect anyone to believe what I say just because I say it, but because what I say makes sense and is supported by at least some research. If it doesn't make sense to you, I'll try to explain it in more detail. If you think what I say is not in accordance with the evidence, then by all means show me the flaws in the evidence.

 

For example, I write: "There is no uniform global warming.  It's a theoretical, mathematical average of temperatures." You seem to interpret this as meaning that I'm stating there is no 'average' global warming. You seem to have failed to distinguish between 'uniform global warming' and 'mathematically constructed average global warming'. Uniform global warming means that every region on the planet, over a given number of years, is warming simultaneously, and that no region is cooling. This is obviously not true.

 

Some regions of the planet might be warming to a greater degree than other parts are cooling. More glaciers might be melting (or retreating), than advancing, and in some regions most of the glaciers might be stable, neither advancing nor retreating.

 

Whilst the Arctic might be losing ice over a given period, the Antarctic might be gaining ice during that same period. However, if the Arctic is losing a greater amount of ice than the Antarctic is gaining, then that is a factor in the mathematically constructed average global temperature which will tend to show a gradual, average, global warming.

 

I have no concerns about the current rate of warming, nor do I deny it is occurring. My knowledge of history suggests to me that warm periods are more beneficial for mankind than cold periods. Chinese dynasties, the Vikings in Greenland, and the Romans in Europe, all thrived during warm periods, and the Chinese are flourishing again during the current warm period. ????

 

Attached are a few links for you to read, which support the point I'm making.
 

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-zealand-unusual-glaciers.html

"At least 58 New Zealand glaciers advanced between 1983 and 2008, with Franz Josef Glacier (Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere) advancing nearly continuously during this time."
 

https://www.thegwpf.com/himalayan-glaciers-have-been-melting-for-400-years-scientists-discover/

" ISRO in collaboration with MoEF conducted a study on a part of glaciated Himalayas.
• It was found that 87% of the glaciers have stable fronts.
• In fact, 18 of the glaciers are advancing.
• But alarming news is that 248 of the 2,018 glaciers are retreating or melting."
 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers."
 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/wintertime-arctic-sea-ice-growth-slows-long-term-decline-nasa
"But at the same time that sea ice is vanishing quicker than it has ever been observed in the satellite record, it is also thickening at a faster rate during winter. This increase in growth rate might last for decades, a new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters found."

 

[nausea]

On 3/16/2019 at 7:22 AM, crouchpeter said:

This is the generation that can't walk to school, that needs air-con in the classroom, whose only entertainments use electricity and who think we can flood our countries with people from countries already ruined, and survive!
But not to worry..... they'll be eating dates and using donkeys for transport. (but not to get to school)!

 

Sent from my CPH1727 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

And yours are the generatios that started two world wars, threatened world annhialation with nuclear weapons, and kept the world in a constant state of combat since; give me a break, these guys are babies. When they understand what's really going on, I'm sure they'll come around to your way of thinking. Ha!

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 6:20 PM, Prissana Pescud said:

Parents take their kids to school because too many paedophiles operate unopposed in our communities.

Placard carrying people stopped the Vietnam war.

Why not travel overseas, it is an education. It shows how some countries do not need coal to exist.

It is up to governments to prohibit the importation of palm oil.

They are the future, not you, if you care about your kids - get aboard.  

I don't have kids because there are too many people in the world already.

Children going on holiday abroad usually have little interest in the country they visit, preferring to swim and play on their machines. How many of them investigate the power generation systems of foreign countries? Tourist air travel pollutes the atmosphere for zero ecological reward.

Are you claiming that paedophiles are allowed to board school buses?

If you think students carrying placards stopped the Vietnam war you need to educate yourself. The Kent State students probably helped, but how many of the present day students are willing to die for their beliefs?

 

It is up to governments to prohibit the importation of palm oil.

LOL. The ultimate nanny state response- it's always up to someone else to do something about it.

If the students are not prepared to actually do something real, why should anyone that matters take any notice of them?

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 2:56 AM, nausea said:

And yours are the generatios that started two world wars, threatened world annhialation with nuclear weapons, and kept the world in a constant state of combat since; give me a break, these guys are babies. When they understand what's really going on, I'm sure they'll come around to your way of thinking. Ha!

I think the last soldier from WW1 died a while ago. I fail to see how my generation ( and I wasn't even born before WW2 ) started WW1.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 10:40 PM, VincentRJ said:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/wintertime-arctic-sea-ice-growth-slows-long-term-decline-nasa
"But at the same time that sea ice is vanishing quicker than it has ever been observed in the satellite record, it is also thickening at a faster rate during winter. This increase in growth rate might last for decades, a new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters found."

Please note that sea ice makes no difference to ocean levels at all, whether frozen or melted.

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Please note that sea ice makes no difference to ocean levels at all, whether frozen or melted.

Good point, which perhaps needs clarifying. I think you mean, when an iceberg breaks away and gradually melts as it drifts towards warmer water, it will not contribute to any sea level rise because 90% of the iceberg is already under the surface of the sea. There is basically just a change from a solid to a liquid.

 

However, the warming of the oceans which causes the icebergs to break away and melt, will also tend to cause the water in the oceans to expand (thermal expansion), contributing towards a rise in ocean levels. Likewise, a cooling of the oceans, which causes more icebergs to form, will cause the ocean water to contract or shrink in volume, which will contribute to a fall in sea levels.

 

Melting glaciers on land will also contribute to sea level rise by adding more water to the oceans. However, in a warmer climate, more evaporation will take place, more clouds will form, and more rain will fall, so at least a part of that increase in water volume will be shifted to the atmosphere and land through precipitation.

 

This provides a clue to the solution of the problem of rising sea levels, which can be expected to occur in a warming climate. Build more dams or inland lakes in order to reduce the amount of rain flowing back into the sea, and tow icebergs to the coast and pump the melting ice to the land.

 

The water from additional precipitation and the breaking away of icebergs, resulting from global warming, can be absorbed into the soil and underground water tables, and/or can be used for increased agriculture and reforestation. The increase in water supply, plus the increased warmth, plus the fertilization effect of increased CO2 levels, should be a great boon for the whole of mankind. ????

 

Sadly, with increased energy costs and the limited energy supply due to the expensive shift towards renewables, it could be too expensive to build lots of dams and long water pipes, and tow icebergs to the nearest continent, so I guess we're stuffed. ☹️

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Good point, which perhaps needs clarifying. I think you mean, when an iceberg breaks away and gradually melts as it drifts towards warmer water, it will not contribute to any sea level rise because 90% of the iceberg is already under the surface of the sea. There is basically just a change from a solid to a liquid.

 

However, the warming of the oceans which causes the icebergs to break away and melt, will also tend to cause the water in the oceans to expand (thermal expansion), contributing towards a rise in ocean levels. Likewise, a cooling of the oceans, which causes more icebergs to form, will cause the ocean water to contract or shrink in volume, which will contribute to a fall in sea levels.

 

Melting glaciers on land will also contribute to sea level rise by adding more water to the oceans. However, in a warmer climate, more evaporation will take place, more clouds will form, and more rain will fall, so at least a part of that increase in water volume will be shifted to the atmosphere and land through precipitation.

 

This provides a clue to the solution of the problem of rising sea levels, which can be expected to occur in a warming climate. Build more dams or inland lakes in order to reduce the amount of rain flowing back into the sea, and tow icebergs to the coast and pump the melting ice to the land.

 

The water from additional precipitation and the breaking away of icebergs, resulting from global warming, can be absorbed into the soil and underground water tables, and/or can be used for increased agriculture and reforestation. The increase in water supply, plus the increased warmth, plus the fertilization effect of increased CO2 levels, should be a great boon for the whole of mankind. ????

 

Sadly, with increased energy costs and the limited energy supply due to the expensive shift towards renewables, it could be too expensive to build lots of dams and long water pipes, and tow icebergs to the nearest continent, so I guess we're stuffed. ☹️

Sorry, given the length of your reply, but no, I am referring to sea ice only, not icebergs that are formed when the ice shelf or a glacier breaks off. Sea ice is frozen sea water, so whether it is frozen or thawed, it is exactly the same amount of water.

 

They've been referring to towing icebergs since I were a lad. They were going to use nuclear powered tugs. Given the water shortage and the wars that will be fought over it in the future, towing icebergs may yet come to be reality.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sea ice is frozen sea water, so whether it is frozen or thawed, it is exactly the same amount of water.

 

Provided the sea ice doesn't have any snow on top, which it usually has. The snow can also compact and increase the thickness of the ice.

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Sadly, with increased energy costs and the limited energy supply due to the expensive shift towards renewables, it could be too expensive to build lots of dams and long water pipes, and tow icebergs to the nearest continent, so I guess we're stuffed. ☹️

Are you still living in the 20th century? Because at this point your thoughts about fossil fuel are themselves fossils.. The hard nosed capitalists at Lazard come out every year with a report comparing the levelized cost of various sources of energy. Solar and wind are already beating the pants off of coal. In terms of generating capacity, crystalline solar PVs have fallen in price by 88 percent over the last 9 years. That's an annual drop of 21%. In terms of generating capacity, wind turbines have fallen in cost by 69 percent over those same nine years. And their costs are still plummetinig. Coal has fallen in price by 9%.

But it gets even worse. If you compare the cost of building a solar plant compared to just the marginal cost of coal in a power plant, solar power even beats that. In other words it makes more economic sense to build a solar plant to replace a new coal powered plant than it does to keep the coal powered plant running.

 

"Looking at the figures, we can see even more clearly that the least expensive electricity now comes from renewable technologies. On the basis of cost per megawatt-hour for solar PVs, it ranges from $36 to $44, and for onshore windpower, it ranges from $29 to $56. By contrast, for CCNG, it ranges from $41 to $74, for coal, the range is from $60 to $143, and for nuclear, it is from $112 to $189. Windpower and solar PVs might compete with each other nearly head-on, but both will often beat CCNG, and both are always likely to beat both coal and nuclear."

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/12/whoo-hoo-lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-12-0-is-here/

https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

[bristolboy]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

 

This provides a clue to the solution of the problem of rising sea levels, which can be expected to occur in a warming climate. Build more dams or inland lakes in order to reduce the amount of rain flowing back into the sea, and tow icebergs to the coast and pump the melting ice to the land.

 

The water from additional precipitation and the breaking away of icebergs, resulting from global warming, can be absorbed into the soil and underground water tables, and/or can be used for increased agriculture and reforestation. The increase in water supply, plus the increased warmth, plus the fertilization effect of increased CO2 levels, should be a great boon for the whole of mankind. ????

 

Sadly, with increased energy costs and the limited energy supply due to the expensive shift towards renewables, it could be too expensive to build lots of dams and long water pipes, and tow icebergs to the nearest continent, so I guess we're stuffed. ☹️

It sure is a good thing that coastal and low lying areas won't be subject to increased flooding thanks to increased precipitation because...well I can't think of a reason why that would be the case. Can you?

"More than 600 million people (around 10 per cent of the world’s population) live in coastal areas that are less than 10 meters above sea level.  Nearly 2.4 billion people (about 40 per cent of the world’s population) live within 100 km (60 miles) of the coast."

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Ocean-fact-sheet-package.pdf

And as for dams, they are themselves an environmental disaster:

https://www.earthlawcenter.org/blog-entries/2017/12/dams-climate-change-bad-news

And what about the fact that rising seas are already ruining valuable croplands?

Food security threatened by sea-level rise

Coastal countries are highly prone to sea-level rise, which leads to salt-water intrusion and increased salinity levels in agricultural land. Also typical for these regions are floods and waterlogging caused by cyclones and typhoons, as well as prolonged drought periods

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170118082423.htm

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Are you still living in the 20th century? Because at this point your thoughts about fossil fuel are themselves fossils.. The hard nosed capitalists at Lazard come out every year with a report comparing the levelized cost of various sources of energy. Solar and wind are already beating the pants off of coal. In terms of generating capacity, crystalline solar PVs have fallen in price by 88 percent over the last 9 years. That's an annual drop of 21%. In terms of generating capacity, wind turbines have fallen in cost by 69 percent over those same nine years. And their costs are still plummetinig. Coal has fallen in price by 9%.

But it gets even worse. If you compare the cost of building a solar plant compared to just the marginal cost of coal in a power plant, solar power even beats that. In other words it makes more economic sense to build a solar plant to replace a new coal powered plant than it does to keep the coal powered plant running.

 

"Looking at the figures, we can see even more clearly that the least expensive electricity now comes from renewable technologies. On the basis of cost per megawatt-hour for solar PVs, it ranges from $36 to $44, and for onshore windpower, it ranges from $29 to $56. By contrast, for CCNG, it ranges from $41 to $74, for coal, the range is from $60 to $143, and for nuclear, it is from $112 to $189. Windpower and solar PVs might compete with each other nearly head-on, but both will often beat CCNG, and both are always likely to beat both coal and nuclear."

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/12/whoo-hoo-lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-12-0-is-here/

https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

If what you say is correct, why do any countries still use fossil fuelled power generation?

Could be it's not as cheap as you claim.

Regardless, till they figure out how to drive an electric powered vehicle for 7 hours with one stop of approximately 15 minutes to refuel, fossil fuel will continue to power vehicles indefinitely.

I don't think they have even come up with a theory as to making jumbo jets fly on batteries.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If what you say is correct, why do any countries still use fossil fuelled power generation?

Could be it's not as cheap as you claim.

Regardless, till they figure out how to drive an electric powered vehicle for 7 hours with one stop of approximately 15 minutes to refuel, fossil fuel will continue to power vehicles indefinitely.

I don't think they have even come up with a theory as to making jumbo jets fly on batteries.

First off, the main point was about coal which is far more costly to use. The main reason coal still gets used is corruption. The more corrupt a government is, the more likely it is to use coal. China, Indonesia, and India are the countries most invested in new coal power plants. The Chinese govt has increasingly subsidized inefficient state owned industries including coal powered plants. Indonesia has huge deposits of coal and is an extraordinarily corrupt nation. So coal producers have undue influence there. India is the country that proves my point. It's got a hybrid system of power generation: government owned power stations and privately owned stations. Virtually no one in the private power generating sector of India is building coal fueled power plants. Solar power is massively less costly. All the construction of power plants is now being done solely by the government.

[VincentRJ]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It sure is a good thing that coastal and low lying areas won't be subject to increased flooding thanks to increased precipitation because...well I can't think of a reason why that would be the case. Can you?

"More than 600 million people (around 10 per cent of the world’s population) live in coastal areas that are less than 10 meters above sea level.  Nearly 2.4 billion people (about 40 per cent of the world’s population) live within 100 km (60 miles) of the coast."

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Ocean-fact-sheet-package.pdf

And as for dams, they are themselves an environmental disaster:

 

You seem to have a very negative, one-sided view of this issue. Dams are not only necessary to provide a continuous water supply which is essential for our survival in this modern era with large populations inhabiting cities and suburbs, but are also necessary to reduce the disastrous consequences of periodic flooding and droughts which have occurred throughout history and will continue to occur regardless human contributions to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

However, whenever the environment changes, for whatever reason, such as changes in the flow of a river and the flow of sediments in the river, there will always be consequences. Change is unavoidable. That's a fundamental, universal truth that 'climate alarmists' seem to deny. Climate is always changing, weather patterns are always changing, volcanoes and earthquakes change the landscape and the flow of rivers. Some species become extinct due to the changing environment whilst other species flourish, and so on, and so on, for ever more.

 

What I find really absurd is that a proposal to build a dam to provide more water for agriculture and to mitigate the consequences of the next flood, is sometimes knocked on the head because of claims that a rare species of fish might become extinct and/or the wetlands near the ocean shore might become less fertile.

 

Please raise your hands, all those who are prepared to sacrifice their home and possibly some loved ones, during the next flood, in order to avoid the possible extinction of a rare species of fish. ????

 

If you are making the argument that all changes to the environment should be natural and not caused by the Homo Sapiens species, because we are an unnatural species, then the only solution is to return to a 'hunter/gatherer' type of lifestyle. 

 

My proposal is that we should try to be aware of both the negative and positive consequences of our development projects. If it is clear that the negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences and that such negative consequences cannot be addressed, or mitigated, or compensated for, in any way, then it is only sensible that such projects should be abandoned.

 

For example, if you want to stop sea levels rising in a warming climate, then a proposal to reduce the amount water flowing back to the oceans would clearly work. However, there will inevitably be some negative consequences, such as less fertile mangrove swamps near the sea shores. Can these negative consequences be compensated for? In Australia they certainly can. We have huge areas of arid and dry areas, including complete deserts. We could make those arid regions fertile and productive by using the excess water which otherwise would cause sea levels to rise, for irrigation purposes.

 

Climate change alarmists so often raise alarm about both rising sea levels and increasing desertification due to mankind's emissions of CO2. Both of these problems can be solved simultaneously. If you think rising CO2 levels is also a problem in itself, then all three problems can be solved simultaneously. As the deserts are irrigated with the water that would otherwise cause sea levels to rise, more CO2 is absorbed by the plant growth and is sequestered in the soil.

 

Towing icebergs to the shores of arid lands, and building desalination plants, will also help reduce sea level rise, but all this costs money or energy. We all make choices on how we spend our money or energy resources and must bear the consequences of foolish decisions.

 

I have no objection to governments spending money on research into alternative, renewable and additional sources of energy. Supplies of energy are vital for the prosperity of mankind. The more the better. Solar power is a fantastic source of energy. We should definitely exploit it to the full.

 

The inland lakes that we create to stop the water flowing back to the oceans could be covered with solar panels. The panels will also significantly reduce the evaporation. The great advantage of solar panels is that they don't necessarily have to take up land that could be used for other purposes. They can be situated in deserts where the sun shines usually all day long, and on roofs of buildings which are effectively free spaces.

 

What I object to is foolishly depriving ourselves of reliable energy from fossil fuel, which is reliable 24 hours a day, on the grounds of an unfounded scare about CO2 emissions.

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You seem to have a very negative, one-sided view of this issue. Dams are not only necessary to provide a continuous water supply which is essential for our survival in this modern era with large populations inhabiting cities and suburbs, but are also necessary to reduce the disastrous consequences of periodic flooding and droughts which have occurred throughout history and will continue to occur regardless human contributions to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

However, whenever the environment changes, for whatever reason, such as changes in the flow of a river and the flow of sediments in the river, there will always be consequences. Change is unavoidable. That's a fundamental, universal truth that 'climate alarmists' seem to deny. Climate is always changing, weather patterns are always changing, volcanoes and earthquakes change the landscape and the flow of rivers. Some species become extinct due to the changing environment whilst other species flourish, and so on, and so on, for ever more.

 

What I find really absurd is that a proposal to build a dam to provide more water for agriculture and to mitigate the consequences of the next flood, is sometimes knocked on the head because of claims that a rare species of fish might become extinct and/or the wetlands near the ocean shore might become less fertile.

 

Please raise your hands, all those who are prepared to sacrifice their home and possibly some loved ones, during the next flood, in order to avoid the possible extinction of a rare species of fish. ????

 

If you are making the argument that all changes to the environment should be natural and not caused by the Homo Sapiens species, because we are an unnatural species, then the only solution is to return to a 'hunter/gatherer' type of lifestyle. 

 

My proposal is that we should try to be aware of both the negative and positive consequences of our development projects. If it is clear that the negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences and that such negative consequences cannot be addressed, or mitigated, or compensated for, in any way, then it is only sensible that such projects should be abandoned.

 

For example, if you want to stop sea levels rising in a warming climate, then a proposal to reduce the amount water flowing back to the oceans would clearly work. However, there will inevitably be some negative consequences, such as less fertile mangrove swamps near the sea shores. Can these negative consequences be compensated for? In Australia they certainly can. We have huge areas of arid and dry areas, including complete deserts. We could make those arid regions fertile and productive by using the excess water which otherwise would cause sea levels to rise, for irrigation purposes.

 

Climate change alarmists so often raise alarm about both rising sea levels and increasing desertification due to mankind's emissions of CO2. Both of these problems can be solved simultaneously. If you think rising CO2 levels is also a problem in itself, then all three problems can be solved simultaneously. As the deserts are irrigated with the water that would otherwise cause sea levels to rise, more CO2 is absorbed by the plant growth and is sequestered in the soil.

 

Towing icebergs to the shores of arid lands, and building desalination plants, will also help reduce sea level rise, but all this costs money or energy. We all make choices on how we spend our money or energy resources and must bear the consequences of foolish decisions.

 

I have no objection to governments spending money on research into alternative, renewable and additional sources of energy. Supplies of energy are vital for the prosperity of mankind. The more the better. Solar power is a fantastic source of energy. We should definitely exploit it to the full.

 

The inland lakes that we create to stop the water flowing back to the oceans could be covered with solar panels. The panels will also significantly reduce the evaporation. The great advantage of solar panels is that they don't necessarily have to take up land that could be used for other purposes. They can be situated in deserts where the sun shines usually all day long, and on roofs of buildings which are effectively free spaces.

 

What I object to is foolishly depriving ourselves of reliable energy from fossil fuel, which is reliable 24 hours a day, on the grounds of an unfounded scare about CO2 emissions.

Who mentioned mangroves? Not me. I specifically cited cropland. Try to get this through your head: rising sea levels are a major threat to food security. 

Food security threatened by sea-level rise

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170118082423.htm

Ruined crops, salty soil: How rising seas are poisoning North Carolina’s farmland

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ruined-crops-salty-soil-how-rising-seas-are-poisoning-north-carolinas-farmland/2019/03/01/2e26b83e-28ce-11e9-8eef-0d74f4bf0295_story.html?utm_term=.d6bec8a3d7e1

Salinity Intrusion in a Changing Climate Scenario will Hit Coastal Bangladesh Hard

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/02/17/salinity-intrusion-in-changing-climate-scenario-will-hit-coastal-bangladesh-hard

The impact of sea level rise on developing countries : a comparative analysis (English)

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/156401468136816684/The-impact-of-sea-level-rise-on-developing-countries-a-comparative-analysis

Climate change: Rising sea levels pose salt threat in Vietnam

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/climate-change-rising-sea-levels-pose-salt-threat-in-vietnam

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Who mentioned mangroves? Not me. I specifically cited cropland. Try to get this through your head: rising sea levels are a major threat to food security. 

Crikey! Rising sea levels are a major threat to everyone who lives or works in low-lying areas close to the sea. Isn't that bleeding obvious? 

 

I've provided in my previous post a solution to the problem. I mentioned mangroves as just an example of one of the negative consequences of building more dams to reduce river flow to the sea, which is often cited by environmentalists as a reason, among other reasons, to block the proposal for a new dam.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Crikey! Rising sea levels are a major threat to everyone who lives or works in low-lying areas close to the sea. Isn't that bleeding obvious? 

 

I've provided in my previous post a solution to the problem. I mentioned mangroves as just an example of one of the negative consequences of building more dams to reduce river flow to the sea, which is often cited by environmentalists as a reason, among other reasons, to block the proposal for a new dam.

But thanks anyway for bringing up the subject of mangroves:

 

Mangroves help protect against sea level rise

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150723083855.htm

 

Mangroves for Coastal Protection : Evidence from Hurricanes in Central America (English)

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/700941553603777645/Mangroves-for-Coastal-Protection-Evidence-from-Hurricanes-in-Central-America

Tsunami mitigation by mangroves and coastal forests

http://www.fao.org/forestry/tsunami/27285@69434/en/

[VincentRJ]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But thanks anyway for bringing up the subject of mangroves:

 

Mangroves help protect against sea level rise

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150723083855.htm

 

Mangroves for Coastal Protection : Evidence from Hurricanes in Central America (English)

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/700941553603777645/Mangroves-for-Coastal-Protection-Evidence-from-Hurricanes-in-Central-America

Tsunami mitigation by mangroves and coastal forests

http://www.fao.org/forestry/tsunami/27285@69434/en/

That might be true, but mangroves don't exist along all coast lines and in all cities close to the beach. My solution reduces sea level rise everywhere. Protection from hurricanes is another issue which requires the construction of more robust dwellings designed to resist the forces of hurricanes.

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That might be true, but mangroves don't exist along all coast lines and in all cities close to the beach. My solution reduces sea level rise everywhere. Protection from hurricanes is another issue which requires the construction of more robust dwellings designed to resist the forces of hurricanes.

So the people with the least resources to protect themselves would be sacrificed for a dubious and massively costly solution.

 

Let me remind you that the threat of flooding in low lying areas of the world doesn't only come from rivers. By your own admission rainfall will increase thanks to global warming. Massive downpours and the ensuing floods in low lying areas such as recently inundated Houston, won't be stopped by dams. 

 

And as the current situation in the USA shows, even a massive dam system such as there is in the midwest, won't protect against flooding when precipitation levels are just too high for the system to cope with. In fact, while the disasters my be less frequent, the dams actually make them worse when the floodgates have to be opened.

 

What I really don't understand though, is since you believe that the recent climate changes are just a matter of oscillation, why not just wait for the pendulum to swing back the other way instead of proposing huge expenditues on what should be a very temporary phenomenon. By your lights and what you've posited earlier, the odds are overwhelming that this is the case.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

So the people with the least resources to protect themselves would be sacrificed for a dubious and massively costly solution.

 

Not necessarily. You've heard of foreign aid, presumably. There are low lying areas where dams are not practical. Dykes then have to be constructed, as in Holland.

 

Let me remind you that the threat of flooding in low lying areas of the world doesn't only come from rivers. By your own admission rainfall will increase thanks to global warming. Massive downpours and the ensuing floods in low lying areas such as recently inundated Houston, won't be stopped by dams.

 

 

There's an issue of 'flash flooding' which usually occurs with heavy rain because the suburban environment has not been molded or shaped with appropriate drainage to ensure proper run-off. A combination of dams further up the river and proper contouring of the suburban landscape should prevent the flooding in most cases.

 

And as the current situation in the USA shows, even a massive dam system such as there is in the midwest, won't protect against flooding when precipitation levels are just too high for the system to cope with. In fact, while the disasters my be less frequent, the dams actually make them worse when the floodgates have to be opened.

 

Exactly! This is a result of inadequate planning. In order to save money we tend to build what we imagine should be adequate in most situations, and ignore the inevitability of the more rare and more extreme events.

 

For example, it often happens that flood mitigation dams are combined with normal water storage. During droughts, the dams become very low and restrictions on water use are applied. When the rainy period inevitably follows, sooner or later as it usually does, the dam operators are reluctant to release water because weather forecasts are usually unreliable and it is not known with any certainty if the rain will be sufficient to fill the dam. So, rather than release water from a half-empty dam to reduce the potential risk of flooding, the dam operators tend to allow the dam to fill. When the rains continue, the dam can no longer be used as a 'flood mitigation dam'. The water has to be released into an area which is already soaked, and is perhaps already experiencing flash flooding. Disaster is then inevitable.

 

The solution is to build more dams so that we can use some of the dams solely for the purpose of flood mitigation, and continually pump the water out, to desert areas if possible.

 

What I really don't understand though, is since you believe that the recent climate changes are just a matter of oscillation, why not just wait for the pendulum to swing back the other way instead of proposing huge expenditues on what should be a very temporary phenomenon. By your lights and what you've posited earlier, the odds are overwhelming that this is the case.

 

Periods of warming and cooling, flooding and droughts, often oscillate over short periods of a decade or two in particular regions, but globally can change gradually over several centuries. The Roman warm period ran from 250 BC to AD 400. The Medieval Warm Period ran from 950 AD to 1250 AD, followed the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850 AD. Those dates are very approximate and would have varied in different parts of the world at different rates and different periods of 'ups and downs'. 

 

It's impossible to predict how long the current average warming will last, but there seems to be an alternating pattern of roughly 300 to 500 years. We're only about 170 years into the current warming which has followed the Little Ice Age. Floods and droughts have occurred in the past, regardless of whether it was a warm or cold period. 

 

I'm not an advocate of doing nothing. There's no doubt that the destruction of property and the loss of life due to extreme weather events has increased during the last century, but that's not necessarily because the extreme weather events have got more extreme or become more frequent, but because there are more houses and more people who are vulnerable to the extreme weather events, because of the population explosion.

 

We have failed to learn from history in protecting ourselves from these normal and natural extreme weather events. Instead we'd prefer to kid ourselves that reducing CO2 emissions will solve the problem.