UK Passport Payment Form

[Salerno]

45 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

Did you read the title of this thread and the header of the OP ?

Do you know the definition of sinking?  

[RickBradford]

28 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I just don't understand why you would claim a consensus for global cooling in the 70's when the fact of the National Academy of Science's report clearly proves that's not the case.

To claim a 'consensus' about climate science in the 1970s would be even dumber than claiming one today. There were only a handful of groups back then with any expertise in the subject.

 

Many of those groups, with the resources to reach the White House, to hold large international gatherings of scientists, to garner wide media coverage and to attract the interest of the intelligence community, were convinced the world was sliding back into a new ice age.

 

To argue whether these scientists were perhaps outnumbered 58 to 57 by the authors of a report from the "National Academy of Science" (whatever that may have been, perhaps the forerunner of today's National Academy of Sciences) is a pointless exercise.

 

The global cooling guys were there, there were plenty of them, they were well-known, and held considerable sway in the thinking of the time on climate change. To deny that is downright silly.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by RickBradford

[bristolboy]

35 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

If you read my posts, you would find it easier to 'fathom' what is going on.

 

There is ample documentary evidence that a considerable body of well-known US and European climate scientists in the 1970s were concerned enough about global cooling to take those concerns to the top levels of government.

 

Stephen Schneider, later a fervent global warming advocate, even wrote a book about the potential problems from global cooling called The Genesis Strategy. It was a mainstream issue, and the scientists who predicted long-term global cooling were quite wrong.

 

Therefore we should be very cautious in assuming that scientists are infallible, or even accurate. They are human, and humans are prone to bias, groupthink and error.

 

That's it.

 

As a rider, I have written nothing about the "National Academy of Science", and yet you suggest I have been accusing it of misrepresentation. I would be obliged if you would stop making up false statements and attributing them to me.

So that's why you quoted this? 

 

"The Western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change," the report begins, referring to global cooling, and then goes on to cite supporting evidence from several groups in the UK, US, and Russia which had come to similar conclusions.

 

"Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources."

 

You'll note it doesn't say "Some of the West's leading climatologists..."

So who was being consulted for the National Academy of Science's report? None of the Western world's leading climatologists?

[metisdead]

Posts in violation of fair use policy have been removed as well as the replies as they did not have any links to substantiate the sources. 

 

Some troll posts were removed as well. 

[rickudon]

So much disinformation in this thread. 

 

First - sea level. During the 20th century sea level rose on average 1.5-2 mm per year. But it was increasing towards the end. In the last 25 years, average was 3.4 mm. Last 10 years, closer to 4 mm. Sea level doesn't change uniformly, it is different at different places, and at different times. So one measurement is useless. Also means a lot depends on the weighting of your data.

 

Why does it rise? Actually, melting ice is the lesser reason. Mainly due to thermal expansion - warmer world, warmer seas.

 

Why did the world not warm in the post ww2 period? Probably due to atmospheric pollution, which caused cooling. Of course, most of the measurements were being made in the developed world, so were where the pollution was greatest.

 

Sea level is rising faster than at any time in the last 3000 years.

 

[englishoak]

12 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Yes it is, around 2 cm each year. That happens if you build skyscrapers on a swamp. Not much one can deny there. The pure weight of these buildings on swampy land pushes it down.

 

 

Not all BKK is swamp, by those numbers that should make it and our place a foot lower than 15 yrs ago, it absolutely is not and the street and roads floods no higher, your talking rubbish unless you mean MM and thats nothing.

 

The Maldives are at base sea level and are mostly atols, they still havnt sunk and many that should have been covered 30 years ago still havnt, we were in Mali last year and nope no change much there than a decade ago when they were bleating about the same fears,  just the usual erosion and storm damage doing its thing nothing more. 

 

There is no rising sea levels just usual steady erosion of landmass by sea and weather erosion. 

Edited October 31, 2019 by englishoak

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[Tippaporn]

. . . the scale of the upheaval projected to unfold as global warming increasingly threatens some of the world's most densely-populated regions.

 

Global warming stated as fact.  Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

 

The authors said they had used artificial intelligence to correct systematic errors in a previous dataset . . . 

 

You mean they're admitting that what they thought previously turned out to be in error?  Ah, but by using AI now they are absolutely able to correctly predict what will happen 30 years from now.  They can't predict the weather a month from today.  But they can surely predict 30 years, or even 80 years from now.  What a joke.  How about using your own intelligence?  Naw, it's not sufficient enough.  LOL

 

"We now understand that the threat from sea-level rise and coastal flooding is far greater than we previously thought," said Benjamin Strauss . . .

 

And tomorrow they'll come up with the latest new understanding that will discredit the old, erroneous understanding they have today.  Who trusts these idiots?

 

"It's also true that the benefits from cutting climate pollution are far greater than we previously thought – this changes the whole benefit-cost equation," Strauss told Reuters.

 

Got a problem?  Throw money at it.  I mean, look how many worldwide issues have already been solved by throwing money at them.  The list is endless, right?

 

Although a certain amount of sea-level rise is baked into the climate system due to a legacy of past carbon emissions . . . 

 

All bow before the new god . . . science.  Science declares and people believe.  Just another cult.

 

 

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

. . . the scale of the upheaval projected to unfold as global warming increasingly threatens some of the world's most densely-populated regions.

 

Global warming stated as fact.  Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

 

The authors said they had used artificial intelligence to correct systematic errors in a previous dataset . . . 

 

You mean they're admitting that what they thought previously turned out to be in error?  Ah, but by using AI now they are absolutely able to correctly predict what will happen 30 years from now.  They can't predict the weather a month from today.  But they can surely predict 30 years, or even 80 years from now.  What a joke.  How about using your own intelligence?  Naw, it's not sufficient enough.  LOL

 

"We now understand that the threat from sea-level rise and coastal flooding is far greater than we previously thought," said Benjamin Strauss . . .

 

And tomorrow they'll come up with the latest new understanding that will discredit the old, erroneous understanding they have today.  Who trusts these idiots?

 

"It's also true that the benefits from cutting climate pollution are far greater than we previously thought – this changes the whole benefit-cost equation," Strauss told Reuters.

 

Got a problem?  Throw money at it.  I mean, look how many worldwide issues have already been solved by throwing money at them.  The list is endless, right?

 

Although a certain amount of sea-level rise is baked into the climate system due to a legacy of past carbon emissions . . . 

 

All bow before the new god . . . science.  Science declares and people believe.  Just another cult.

 

 

If you dont base your view in science what do you base it on?

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

If you dont base your view in science what do you base it on?

That's a question you should probably ask Greta Thunberg to answer.

 

On what did she base the statement she made to the UK Parliament:

 

"Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it."

 

Whatever it was, it sure wasn't science. 

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

If you dont base your view in science what do you base it on?

I base certain of my views on science but not all my views.  I apply common sense to all my views, though.

 

Maybe I didn't make myself clear with my post.  One would have to be in major denial to ignore science's many accomplishments.  It must be understood that science has it's failings as well.  We are, after all, dealing with scientists, e.g. human beings.  Scientists, e.g. human beings are by no means "all knowing" since humans are obviously not "all knowing."  I hope that logic makes sense.

 

Now, there are numbers of people who place a great deal of their faith in science's ability to unerringly perceive the truth of reality.  Science can proclaim whatever results it wants and some people tend to believe it without questioning.  When that happens then science is considered all seeing and all knowing.  It therefore becomes no different than a cult or a religion, with scientists playing the role of high priests.  For some science has supplanted religion, period.

 

The future is plastic.  No one knows what will happen tomorrow let alone 30~80 years from now.  The complexities involved in the creation of anything, in this case climate, are too great for humans, at least in this stage of their development, to comprehend.  Too great for even the most powerful computer imaginable to calculate.  Given that, science has foolishly decided to get into the fortune telling business.  Scientists want to play the role of prophets.  Doomsayer prophets to boot.

 

Scientists are incapable of correctly predicting the weather for next month.  That is fact.  So, using common sense, why would anyone believe they are capable of predicting "the rise of oceans" 30~80 years hence???

 

Just remember that when you go forth into the world never, ever leave your common sense at home.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Tippaporn

[bristolboy]

45 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

 

Scientists are incapable of correctly predicting the weather for next month.  That is fact.  So, using common sense, why would anyone believe they are capable of predicting "the rise of oceans" 30~80 years hence???

 

Just remember that when you go forth into the world never, ever leave your common sense at home.

 

Maybe because in meteorology you're dealing with short term unstable systems but those kind of things tend to average out over time. By your lights because you can't call a coin toss with greater than 50% certainty then you can't predict that over a thousand coin tosses you can't confidently predict that about 500 hundred will be head and 500 will be tails.

[TTL2]

So, does that mean the property price nearest to the sea should be cut into half if not at least cut down by 35%?

[RickBradford]

Quote

By your lights because you can't call a coin toss with greater than 50% certainty then you can't predict that over a thousand coin tosses you can't confidently predict that about 500 hundred will be head and 500 will be tails.

A completely false and meaningless analogy.

 

One is a linear statistical system, bound by the well-understood laws of mathematics; the other a complex chaotic dynamic non-linear system where we probably don't even know all of the variables.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by RickBradford
Clarify

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

A completely false and meaningless analogy.

 

One is a linear statistical system, bound by the well-understood laws of mathematics; the other a complex chaotic dynamic non-linear system where we probably don't even know all of the variables.

 

 

. . . where we probably don't even know all of the variables.

 

Absolutely true.  I would wager that scientists are not aware of all of the variables.  Perhaps only a sliver of variables.  The complexity of weather systems and the entire ecosystem is beyond them.  Granted they are trying to understand it and I don't fault them for their effort.  But when you could assuredly say that they don't know what all of the moving pieces are then I call BS when they begin to claim that their current findings based on their limited understanding are conclusive, unarguable truth.  Fools can go ahead and take their claims as gospel.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Skeptic7]

Buh-bye Cruel World! 

[rabas]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Maybe because in meteorology you're dealing with short term unstable systems but those kind of things tend to average out over time. By your lights because you can't call a coin toss with greater than 50% certainty then you can't predict that over a thousand coin tosses you can't confidently predict that about 500 hundred will be head and 500 will be tails.

The simple answer is nature doesn't work that way.

 

The only reason you can predict a coin toss, or any random variable, is because someone told you the coin will 1) be heads 50.000% of the time and 2) each flip has a random outcome.  From that you can use statistics to learn whatever is predicable.

 

This is not true of mother nature. Nature is not a random process and is only predicable through vastly complex physical, chemical, biological, and, genetic processes. The genetic part makes Earth's environment the most complex and unpredictable system in the universe. What will the vegetative greening observed by NASA do? How will ocean microbes respond? They produce much of our useful atmosphere.

 

Meteorologists struggle to predict weather because of the complexity of water in the atmosphere. H₂0 can be a solid, liquid, or gas and undergoes complex phase changes that depend on so many things. OTOH, climatologists have trouble even putting atmospheric H₂O (a powerful greenhouse gas) into their models.  Good luck with that.

 

Statistics does help with huge data, errors, and visualization. It cannot predict mother nature. Even scientists are having a hard go of it, not to mention monkey business and media (Hi Greta) hysteria.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by rabas

[WhatupThailand]

Search this same Fear Porn Line being used over 30 years ago.

Also remember something about Polar Bears dancing on Ice, due to rising water.

This entire climate scare, is just an excuse to take your things away, charge you more,

and make you feel guilty for living.  All of which is a UN agenda to gain more power.

 

Take time to research this, and stop being a Idiot.

 

[Number 6]

Honestly I don't care. I'll do what I can but at 60 not killing myself over the hypothesis. No kids. Wife will go 15 years after me.

 

Given how the 1% has screwed me my entire life I'm not especially magnanimous. I'm certain poor feel same and more. Can't get poor to change, zero incentive.

 

Stand back and watch it burn or...flood.

[Number 6]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

mother nature. Nature is not a random process

Lol weather is totally random. Reports will predict rain and you'll have sun and vice versa 2019.

 

Nature is totally random.

[rickudon]

1 hour ago, Number 6 said:

Nature is totally random.

Proof of this?

 

Random ( Chaos) is behind it, but the outcomes are not.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, rabas said:

The simple answer is nature doesn't work that way.

 

The only reason you can predict a coin toss, or any random variable, is because someone told you the coin will 1) be heads 50.000% of the time and 2) each flip has a random outcome.  From that you can use statistics to learn whatever is predicable.

 

This is not true of mother nature. Nature is not a random process and is only predicable through vastly complex physical, chemical, biological, and, genetic processes. The genetic part makes Earth's environment the most complex and unpredictable system in the universe. What will the vegetative greening observed by NASA do? How will ocean microbes respond? They produce much of our useful atmosphere.

 

Meteorologists struggle to predict weather because of the complexity of water in the atmosphere. H₂0 can be a solid, liquid, or gas and undergoes complex phase changes that depend on so many things. OTOH, climatologists have trouble even putting atmospheric H₂O (a powerful greenhouse gas) into their models.  Good luck with that.

 

Statistics does help with huge data, errors, and visualization. It cannot predict mother nature. Even scientists are having a hard go of it, not to mention monkey business and media (Hi Greta) hysteria.

 

Unless you believe coin flips are supernatural, each flip does not have a random outcome. It just looks random because a set of sensitive variables contributes to each outcome. But over time as those flips accumulate, the variables are smoothed out and a result approaching 50 percent each for heads and tails is the composite outcome.

You know, before the era of big data, you would have had a point about complexity. But no more.

And as for comments about meteorology, maybe you're showing your age. Do you actually believe forecasting hasn't improved?

Advances in weather prediction

Weather forecasts from leading numerical weather prediction centers such as the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) have also been improving rapidly: A modern 5-day forecast is as accurate as a 1-day forecast was in 1980, and useful forecasts now reach 9 to 10 days into the future (1). Predictions have improved for a wide range of hazardous weather conditions, including hurricanes, blizzards, flash floods, hail, and tornadoes, with skill emerging in predictions of seasonal conditions.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6425/342

If you read further into the article you'll see it's all about big data. Sound familiar?

 

Actually, it's only a slight simplification to say that water vapor is not a contributor to the current warming trend (except insofar as global warming keeps more of it the atmosphere). And the reason for that is water vapor is basically a feedback effect. Most other greenhouse gases like CO2, methane nitrous oxide, etc. are currently exerting a forcing effect.

One amazing prediction from climatologists was that as the lower atmosphere got warmer the stratosphere would get colder.

[Chazar]

On 10/31/2019 at 7:27 AM, Nyezhov said:

Wet and warm is better for life.

i  still prefer wet and  willing????

[Chazar]

53 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But over time as those flips accumulate, the variables are smoothed out and a result approaching 50 percent each for heads and tails is the composite outcome.

hmmmmmmmm you forgot it can also land edge  on

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Chazar said:

hmmmmmmmm you forgot it can also land edge  on

Given that you apparently don't believe that coin flips aren't subject to the laws of nature, why couldn't that happen every time?

[Chazar]

6 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Buh-bye Cruel World! 

i  hope thats a bio degradeable solar powered  fan, couldnt you  use you use a  paper  bag to suffocate  yourself instead?? you thoughtless barst.........

[Chazar]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Given that you apparently don't believe that coin flips aren't subject to the laws of nature

where on earth did I say that?

Edited November 1, 2019 by Chazar

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, Chazar said:

where on earth did I say that?

You didn't. My mistake.

[Chazar]

On 10/31/2019 at 4:20 PM, RideJocky said:

People, all need to sacrifice if we’re to save the planet. 
 

I’m giving up plastic straws today. 
 

Who’s with me? 
 

Together we CAN!!!!!!

me  too  am  burning  all  mine  right  now +am going to 7-11 and  asking for extra  straws to burn those as  well..thattl  learn em????