On 10/31/2019 at 12:02 PM, ThomasThBKK said:

Did you ever go there? They have major issues and are relocating the whole capital city to a new man made island.

12  times between 1988 to 2000  the capital has always had flooding even back then and  its  massively overpopulated thats why they need to get people  off it and the island I first went to was Meerufenfushi and low and behold  30 years later  apart from even more rampant development its  still  not underwater by a long stretch, more of  a problem is all the RUBBISH they accumulate.

The Maldives has abandoned its BS  global warming  ploy and is  selling out to the Saudis and going to destroy itself thru greed https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/03/maldives-plan-to-embrace-mass-tourism-sparks-criticism-and-outrage

3 hours ago, Number 6 said:

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

 

Nature is totally random.

I would say spontaneous but not random.  It may appear to be random because of a lack of understanding of the principles by which it operates.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

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

We're dealing with probabilities on a scale that would boggle the mind.  Big data, no matter how big it gets, is like using a child's toy compared to the constant calculations required for the creation of climate.  People seem to believe that computing power can mimic creation itself.  What foolishness.  No common sense applied.

 

I believe no one is capable of predicting the future due to the fact that probabilities are literally infinite.  Science is utterly foolish in attempting to divine the future with the limited knowledge they currently possess.  And more so when they believe they can, and again especially given their current state of understanding.

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

We're dealing with probabilities on a scale that would boggle the mind.  Big data, no matter how big it gets, is like using a child's toy compared to the constant calculations required for the creation of climate.  People seem to believe that computing power can mimic creation itself.  What foolishness.  No common sense applied.

 

I believe no one is capable of predicting the future due to the fact that probabilities are literally infinite.  Science is utterly foolish in attempting to divine the future with the limited knowledge they currently possess.  And more so when they believe they can, and again especially given their current state of understanding.

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

On 10/31/2019 at 10:03 PM, Pattaya46 said:

Wrong? Just have a look at Jakarta who may be the fastest sinking city in the world. Some part of the city go down 15 to 30 cm per year ! It's not 40 years away; more like 20, or 10... It's an accelerated movement of what is happening to Bangkok.

 

One of the many videos on Jakarta sinking problem :

 

 

To be precise, the city is sinking, but sea levels have not risen significantly.

Same as in Bkk, where they pump too much water out of the ground.

Oh please. Sea levels have been rising and falling since the dawn of time. To think government is going to prevent that from happening is quite simply DUMB.

 

Besides, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years, well before the dawn of evil petroleum and whatever else leftists are screeching about.

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Oh please. Sea levels have been rising and falling since the dawn of time. To think government is going to prevent that from happening is quite simply DUMB.

 

Besides, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years, well before the dawn of evil petroleum and whatever else leftists are screeching about.

Someone else who doesn't understand rate. Once again let's invoke money. Say for the sake of argument you have $10000 to invest. One investment has a yield of 1 percent and the other a yield of 10 percent. By your logic it wouldn't matter where you put your money because in both cases your investment would increase. 

The same goes for sea level. It's not a matter of whether or not it's rising. It's a matter at what rate. Is it rising faster than it was, say 50 years ago? Faster than 25 years ago? The scientific evidence overwhelmingly says yes.

Troll post and replies removed.  

 

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone else who doesn't understand rate. Once again let's invoke money. Say for the sake of argument you have $10000 to invest. One investment has a yield of 1 percent and the other a yield of 10 percent. By your logic it wouldn't matter where you put your money because in both cases your investment would increase. 

The same goes for sea level. It's not a matter of whether or not it's rising. It's a matter at what rate. Is it rising faster than it was, say 50 years ago? Faster than 25 years ago? The scientific evidence overwhelmingly says yes.

We'll set aside your irrelevant banking analogy.

 

As for sea level rises: they come and go. The rates increase. The rates decrease. That's what mother nature has done from the dawn of time. So what?

Thats terrible news. Bangladesh could go under!

3 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

We'll set aside your irrelevant banking analogy.

 

As for sea level rises: they come and go. The rates increase. The rates decrease. That's what mother nature has done from the dawn of time. So what?

Ya got some scientific evidence to back up your assertion? It's clear you don't have a clue about what rate of increase means. Whether it comes to money or temperature it means the same thing:

'Since at least the start of the 20th century, the average global sea level has been rising. Between 1900 and 2016, the sea level rose by 16–21 cm (6.3–8.3 in).^[2] More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017,^[3]:1554 which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century. This acceleration is due mostly to human-caused global warming, which is driving thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of land-based ice sheets and glaciers."^[4]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The same goes for sea level. It's not a matter of whether or not it's rising. It's a matter at what rate. Is it rising faster than it was, say 50 years ago? Faster than 25 years ago? The scientific evidence overwhelmingly says yes.

"Approximately 125,000 years ago, the sea level was approximately 8 meters higher than it is today."

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1496

 

 So before the age of internal combustion engines, aerosol sprays, plastics, and Greta Thunberg, the sea level was 8 METERS higher than it is today. That should tell you something. That polar bears didn't go extinct and life on earth didn't end back then is all we need to know about the great global warming swindle. Taxation at any rate will not stop these natural fluctuations. Sorry.

On 11/4/2019 at 7:23 AM, bristolboy said:

Ya got some scientific evidence to back up your assertion? It's clear you don't have a clue about what rate of increase means. Whether it comes to money or temperature it means the same thing:

'Since at least the start of the 20th century, the average global sea level has been rising. Between 1900 and 2016, the sea level rose by 16–21 cm (6.3–8.3 in).^[2] More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017,^[3]:1554 which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century. This acceleration is due mostly to human-caused global warming, which is driving thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of land-based ice sheets and glaciers."^[4]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

You keep projecting the sea level rise of the last few decades over a century to make a case for an increase current rate of rise.

You are conveniently forgetting 40 years of cooling that had an effect on the historical rate. The historical rate would have been higher if it had not been for the cool period. So you are not providing any clear evidence of an increased rate of sea level rise.

One would think the observable change would be much less obscure after 70 years of major CO2 increases. The observable evidence is not conforming to the AGW theory

 

Also it is superfluous to keep adding thermal expansion to the discussion. The amount of potential thermal expansion is minute.

The average depth of the ocean is 3.7 km. The thermocline occurs at less than 1 km in depth. Most of the water below the thermocline is cold, like 4 degrees C. The amount of thermal expansion possible at 4 degrees is .0001% per 1 degree. The total amount possible at 25 degrees is .0003%. But very little water is above 20 degrees. Also the melting of sea ice, which is 90% submerged undergoes a molecular change which actually causes 9% volume reduction initially. As we all know Ice expands 

On 11/4/2019 at 7:07 AM, bristolboy said:

Someone else who doesn't understand rate. Once again let's invoke money. Say for the sake of argument you have $10000 to invest. One investment has a yield of 1 percent and the other a yield of 10 percent. By your logic it wouldn't matter where you put your money because in both cases your investment would increase. 

The same goes for sea level. It's not a matter of whether or not it's rising. It's a matter at what rate. Is it rising faster than it was, say 50 years ago? Faster than 25 years ago? The scientific evidence overwhelmingly says yes.

Even if we accept your "rate" argument, what can be done about it that is acceptable, affordable and works in the time that you think we have?

No point bringing in unpopular measures in a democracy- just get voted out. No point if measures are unaffordable and result in a catastrophic societal failure. No point if it doesn't work in a reasonable time frame. People will only accept excessive regulation for a few years at most before rebelling. If people don't think it will work they won't even comply at all.

 

What strikes me about the whole climate change movement is that it is solely on fear. There is no plan put up for debate, no attempt to bring the population on board. Only increased taxes and penalties are on offer.

Even what is being offered won't actually do anything, and certainly won't help people have a better life- the opposite as more money is stripped out of people's income.

It's also hypocritical as government tells us that petrol cars are evil while planning more airports.

^^^

I think you are laboring under the misapprehension that the climate change movement has anything to do with climate change. It doesn't.

 

It's just another power play, like the other SJW fads.

 

The activists know that fossil fuel use will continue to rise, and they know that trying to restrict CO2 emissions is futile. 

 

It has degenerated into a shoddy political game being played for personal advantage.