Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[teatree]

* I mention my sources in the post

* BTW sun spots do belong in this debate. Given that virtually ALL the heat on Earth comes from the Sun, the relative activity of Sun (measured in sun spots) is pretty important. More sunspots = more heat getting to the Earth = higher temperatures on Earth

* The Earth has gone through a period of heating but this has stopped and remained stable for the past decade. In fact, temps have actually reduced from the high point in 1998

* If an indoor gardener wants to improve his yield and growth rate he will pump CO2 into his grow room. CO2 has been around 10 times higher than the current levels in the past (source - ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years)

* The current global warming bandwagon will only bring us more tax. That's what the de facto leader of the global warming movement wants to see

[londonthai]

the greens, scientists and many governmental agencies do not have a leader, and they do want rather to reduce fossil fuels, rather than advocating higher taxes - but it's true, that the aviation fuel is not taxed to favour the development of this industry and the tax can be one of the ways of reducing air travel

[Flatouthruthefog]

There was a programme on Thai t.v. a few days ago with an ' expert ' on global warming and rising sea levels who reckoned that if you want a sea view condo in about 15 years time you should be looking to move to Saraburi which will be Thailands new beachfront.

That's great to know! We have a house in the province of Sarsaburi. I'm looking forward to it being considered a luxury beach resort.

Yes, and years hence, tell your grandchildren to get in touch with my grandaughter (as yet unborn). There is already a sealed envelope awaiting her in a bank safe with instructions on how she can build a yachting marina on the lower slopes of Doi Suthep, here in Chiang Mai.

Imagine! Mountain and sea together - and only a very few prestige plots available!! Like Monte Carlo, but smaller and MORE exclusive!!

Great grandad here is already taking deposits. Just PM me for bank details.

Remember: An Expert is only a 'has been' (ex) under pressure ('spurt').

And cheer up, keeps your heads down and enjoy life because (mass chorus now):

THEY ARE ALL TOO DAFT TO LAUGH AT!!

[teatree]

Satellite records comparing sea ice index of the Arctic May 1980 to May 2008 (Source - The National Snow and Ice Data Center,USA). They are almost identical, so why all the scare stories? Ice free Arctic??? Ridiculous!

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...fields=no_panel

Satellite records comparing sea ice index of the Antarctic May 1980 to May 2008 (Source - The National Snow and Ice Data Center,USA). Since 1980 total ice concentration is up 35% and ice extent is up 21%. Why no headlines about this on CNN?

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...fields=no_panel

[apetley]

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080916_minimum_MA.html

16 September 2008

Media Advisory: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2008

This is a joint announcement with NASA and the University of Colorado at Boulder. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder. NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis content, with partial support from NASA.

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. While slightly above the record-low minimum set in 2007, this season further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime sea ice extent observed over the past thirty years.

[teatree]

Or in other words the downward cycle has ended (along with a period of high solar activity) and the re-growth of the ice has begun (along with a period of low solar activity) after the 'record' low of last year.

[AmeriThai]

Ruined Ruins

All over the globe, temples, ancient settlements and other artifacts stand as monuments to civilizations past that until now have withstood the tests of time. But the immediate effects of global warming may finally do them in. Rising seas and more extreme weather have the potential to damage irreplaceable sites. Floods attributed to global warming have already damaged a 600-year-old site, Sukhothai, which was once the capital of a Thai kingdom.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/top..._results-1.html

I tried looking at the links, but getting nothing except "Operation Aborted". From the context of your post, it appears you're talking about the historical ruins at Sukhothai. Can you elaborate more on what was said about the global warming related damage to "a 600-year-old site, Sukhothai"?

[dave_boo]

Or in other words the downward cycle has ended (along with a period of high solar activity) and the re-growth of the ice has begun (along with a period of low solar activity) after the 'record' low of last year.

Wow, isn't it the anti-climate change people who say that all the 'proof' that pro-climate change is just a minor blip on the grand scheme of things? And yet aren't they the first to point to a single year's change and trumpet as being major?

[Khun Jean]

Satellite records comparing sea ice index of the Arctic May 1980 to May 2008 (Source - The National Snow and Ice Data Center,USA). They are almost identical, so why all the scare stories? Ice free Arctic??? Ridiculous!

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...fields=no_panel

Satellite records comparing sea ice index of the Antarctic May 1980 to May 2008 (Source - The National Snow and Ice Data Center,USA). Since 1980 total ice concentration is up 35% and ice extent is up 21%. Why no headlines about this on CNN?

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...fields=no_panel

As usual hard numbers are ignored. Some inconvenient facts for the Al Gore followers.

Temperatures are not rising, ice is not melting, glaciers are bigger than before (although a few that have been examples are smaller). Everything points to a new small ice age.

CO2 has completely nothing to do with global warming, so it is just another excuse to get more tax dollars. The need for some more tax revenues is high, it has to be quick enough to save some other financial institutes.

Global warming has been changed into climate change. Who knows maybe in a few years it will be global cooling and 200 dollar for a barrel of oil.

Sounds outrages? co2 causing global warming sounded outrages to me from the start.

It just is not in humans ability to change the climate.

We are here just for the ride. And of course you should not polute your own environment or kill/eat all the animals. at least that can be controlled. But climate, it just has its own mind and timescale, and that for already millions of years.

[dave_boo]

Satellite records comparing sea ice index of the Arctic May 1980 to May 2008 (Source - The National Snow and Ice Data Center,USA). They are almost identical, so why all the scare stories? Ice free Arctic??? Ridiculous!

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...fields=no_panel

Oh, I was in a hurry earlier and didn't take the time to peruse your link. However, I'd like to point out that for the median (you do understand that means that, to dumb it down, you have to take the average of all the available data) the Northern Sea Ice Extent has been down so far in 2008. Furthermore, almost identical to 1980 =/= being down 800 000 km². For the record, that's larger than the size of Turkey; but we can call it almost identical! And had you gone back to 1979, the delta would have stretched to 900 000 km².

Also interesting is that concentration of the Sea Ice was left out in your haste to put something on the 'intraweb' to bolster you position. If you look at the same time period, you'll notice how much of the ice is much thinner. I will stipulate that quite a bit of the blue indicates lost ice, but even in areas showing remaining ice you'll notice that it's getting much thinner.

Satellite records comparing sea ice index of the Antarctic May 1980 to May 2008 (Source - The National Snow and Ice Data Center,USA). Since 1980 total ice concentration is up 35% and ice extent is up 21%. Why no headlines about this on CNN?

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...fields=no_panel

Firstly, total concentration isn't directly referenced anywhere in the graph. Concentration anamoly is listed, however, that simply lists the total area where the density of the ice has changed against the median. They combine both the positive and negative growth on the single graphic. This is great if you know how to read a graph, horrible if you don't and are simply trying to utilise it to bolster your position.

For instance, look at the intensity of the colours. There's a lot of deep red colour on the 2008 graph. Now that would seem to indicate a vindication of anti-climate change pundit's position. However, look at where those deep red colours are located. That's right; they're essentially all located OUTSIDE the median line. And so if we look at the legend, we learn that the deepest reds are reserved for a positive change of greater than 50% over median. So a single centimeter (which is an extreme example but it makes the point) layer of ice that extends past the median boundary automatically constitutes a growth. 'Well' you say 'growth is growth'. That's true. However, on the other hand look at the blue areas. Is it visible that they're spread throughout the sea ice area? This indicates that the ice sheet itself is growing thinner. There was more area added on, but throughout the whole of the ice sheet how much thickness did you lose in the process. Take notice I was very careful to use 'area' since there is data on that page indicating average thickness of this ice.

Another point to consider is that there is no data presented concerning the ice sheet thickness over landmass. I don't have hard numbers, but to ignore that is foolhardy. The fact that the average thickness is ~1.6 km, and it has been the essentially the sole provider of the ice that is located around the continent should raise alarms. Average percepitation in Antartica is some 10 cm/yr. Now compare that to the amount that the ice sheet has increased in AREA. Even if we allow that ALL of the increase was only 40 cm thick(AFAIK the absolute minimum for the ice to form, however my google-foo is failing and I can't find a definitive answer), an increase of 2 km² over 1980's results would be 60% of the total precipitation for the year 2008. Add in the fact that most sea ice is several meters thick, and you quickly run out of annual precepitation to replace that which is being shoved into the sea. I.E., an addition of 2 meters average for that positive growth for 2008 over the 1980 is 4.0E+12 m³ as opposed to the average precipitation of only 1,37E+12 m³. Or to keep it simple, there's only 34.25% of the growth of land sheet ice to cover the loss to the seas.

Eventually the positive flow of ice is going to greatly decrease simply because there will not be enough weight pushing it outward. This loss of mass is occuring because it is being lost every year and not replenished.

And while there will be some that will try and say that the ice will be replaced, I have to ask 'How?' You can't expect the seawater to replace the ice; it is so supersaturated that the temperatures would have to drop so dramatically low that the rest of the world would be in an ice age. Does anyone have a way of increasing yearly precipitation?

[teatree]

The difference in area between May 1980 and May 2008 is 800 000 km2, but that still leaves 13.2 MILLION km2 of ice! We were told the Arctic was in danger of being ice free this summer. Not even close! Another example of the panic tactics used by the church of global warming. If you were as good at maths as you are at reading graphs you would know that the difference between 1980 and 2008 is a whopping 6%, kind of puts it into perspective, don't you think?

Anyway, do you expect to see exactly the same amount of ice year after year? That is not the way nature works, it is in a constant state of change. When the records began (way, way back in 1979) there WAS more ice, then the Earth went into a warming cycle and the ice retreated. The Earth is now coming out of that warming cycle leading to an increase in ice.

I understand that some of the ice is thin 'new' ice that will melt easier, but the point is that we are no way near an ice free Arctic and the loss it has experienced is well within what can be explained by natural cycles.

[Canadianvisitor]

Some of the quotes on here are astounding. The same person denying that global warming exists, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. You are making a fool out of yourself. Oh, sorry, maybe you're George Bush. I never knew Mr. Bush knew how to work a computer.

[brahmburgers]

The difference in area between May 1980 and May 2008 is 800 000 km2, but that still leaves 13.2 MILLION km2 of ice! We were told the Arctic was in danger of being ice free this summer. Not even close! Another example of the panic tactics used by the church of global warming. If you were as good at maths as you are at reading graphs you would know that the difference between 1980 and 2008 is a whopping 6%, kind of puts it into perspective, don't you think?

Anyway, do you expect to see exactly the same amount of ice year after year? That is not the way nature works, it is in a constant state of change. When the records began (way, way back in 1979) there WAS more ice, then the Earth went into a warming cycle and the ice retreated. The Earth is now coming out of that warming cycle leading to an increase in ice.

I understand that some of the ice is thin 'new' ice that will melt easier, but the point is that we are no way near an ice free Arctic and the loss it has experienced is well within what can be explained by natural cycles.

Is 'teatree' the same person as 'Cha-Am Jamal' who writes many letters to the Bkk Post and Nation - dissing global warming.

Every one is entitled to their opinions. However, I wonder if the few very vocal dissenters to 'global warming' - are somehow fixated on staying that course. In other words, if the scientific data continued to show that ice at the poles was dramatically retreating, year by year, and not getting replaced - would the naysayers continue to insist it cannot be attributed to overall warming of Earth? It's as thought there's some compulsion (for some) to resist the concept of global warming - no matter what. I say, let the science and its hard data lead the way.

Also, regardless of whether one chooses to agree with the g.w. concept, I think all of us can agree that burning less fossil fuels, coupled with conservation and developing clean alternatives, is the way to go.

[jumnien]

Higher sea levels would correspond to a greater clearance for submerged rocks. You are a fool if you think that experienced boaters are noticing any greater clearance than years before. Just ask fisherman in the gulf! Use charts and beware; just because you read about it in a book doesn't mean it exists.

[VegasVic]

* I mention my sources in the post

* BTW sun spots do belong in this debate. Given that virtually ALL the heat on Earth comes from the Sun, the relative activity of Sun (measured in sun spots) is pretty important. More sunspots = more heat getting to the Earth = higher temperatures on Earth

* The Earth has gone through a period of heating but this has stopped and remained stable for the past decade. In fact, temps have actually reduced from the high point in 1998

* If an indoor gardener wants to improve his yield and growth rate he will pump CO2 into his grow room. CO2 has been around 10 times higher than the current levels in the past (source - ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years)

* The current global warming bandwagon will only bring us more tax. That's what the de facto leader of the global warming movement wants to see

teatree, I am no friend of the "greenies" , but what you have stated here is not the complete story. Sunspot activity occurs in 12 year cycles, the middle of the cycle is called solar munimun where there is very little sunspot activity and the height of the cycle is called solar maximum where there is the most sunspot activity. The last solar minimum was at the end of 2005 into 2006 and the next solar maximum will be during 2012. There are many scientists in this field that expect the solar maximum this time around to be the strongest since 1858, when the northern lights were visable on a daily basis in places as far south as Hawaii and Naples Italy. As a matter of fact there are quite a few solar astronomers and physists that think that the sloar maximum in 2012 may be something approaching a cataclismic event because of the effect it will have on radio waves, telecommunication sattelites and the internet. There is also something else to consider during this solar maximum in 2012 and that is the Precession of the planets (which occurs every 25,800 years) will culminate on the winter solstis in 2012. Scientists have no idea what will happen (if anything at all) on Dec. 21st 2012 when Precession occurs, but we do know that the Mayan calander ends on this date The next few years will be interesting if nothting else!!!

[brahmburgers]

* I mention my sources in the post

* BTW sun spots do belong in this debate. Given that virtually ALL the heat on Earth comes from the Sun, the relative activity of Sun (measured in sun spots) is pretty important. More sunspots = more heat getting to the Earth = higher temperatures on Earth

* The Earth has gone through a period of heating but this has stopped and remained stable for the past decade. In fact, temps have actually reduced from the high point in 1998

* If an indoor gardener wants to improve his yield and growth rate he will pump CO2 into his grow room. CO2 has been around 10 times higher than the current levels in the past (source - ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years)

* The current global warming bandwagon will only bring us more tax. That's what the de facto leader of the global warming movement wants to see

teatree, I am no friend of the "greenies" , but what you have stated here is not the complete story. Sunspot activity occurs in 12 year cycles, the middle of the cycle is called solar munimun where there is very little sunspot activity and the height of the cycle is called solar maximum where there is the most sunspot activity. The last solar minimum was at the end of 2005 into 2006 and the next solar maximum will be during 2012. There are many scientists in this field that expect the solar maximum this time around to be the strongest since 1858, when the northern lights were visable on a daily basis in places as far south as Hawaii and Naples Italy. As a matter of fact there are quite a few solar astronomers and physists that think that the sloar maximum in 2012 may be something approaching a cataclismic event because of the effect it will have on radio waves, telecommunication sattelites and the internet. There is also something else to consider during this solar maximum in 2012 and that is the Precession of the planets (which occurs every 25,800 years) will culminate on the winter solstis in 2012. Scientists have no idea what will happen (if anything at all) on Dec. 21st 2012 when Precession occurs, but we do know that the Mayan calander ends on this date The next few years will be interesting if nothting else!!!

Note to Teatree: Sunspots are a result of magnetic activity within the sun - they don't affect heat output from the sun.

Note to Vegasvic: I've never before heard of "Precession of the planets" but it sounds a lot like "Harmonic Convergence" of awhile back (where the planets somewhat 'aligned' as seen from Earth). The relative configuration of the planets have no bearing on what goes on - on Earth. The only effect such things have is on some peoples' perception of things. Correction, it may have an infinitesimally tiny tidal effect - too small to be measured.

[ThaiAdventure]

Wow. Didn't know this thread was still active

I'm starting to get ready for the Big Freeze. Already bought my thermals....Not long now.

Younger Dryas

[Spee]

Note to Teatree: Sunspots are a result of magnetic activity within the sun - they don't affect heat output from the sun.

Note to BB: The first part of your statement is more or less correct. Science data indicate that the second part is patently false.

On an added note:

I'm not real surprised to see that no one has yet made a legitimate case or explanation for attribution "rising" water levels in GoT to so-called man-made global warming. Why am I not surprised? Because there is absolutely no evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.

[teatree]

I'm hoping for a period of global cooling over the next few years that will put to bed all this silly nonsense about MAN MADE global warming.

Wouldn't that be great? The Arctic ice would extend to record levels and we could all focus on the real problem, ie the toxic waste emitted by the burning of oil, NOT CO2.

But even if the world does cool significantly, I'm just waiting for the following headline -

'Global Cooling Caused By Global Warming'

Edited September 23, 2008 by teatree

[brahmburgers]

below is a bit of mention of sunspot activity and whether it affects the Earth's climate:

culled from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...3-sunspots.html

Solar astronomer Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., in Nahant, Massachusetts, points out that scientists have pondered the link between the sun and Earth's climate since the time of Galileo, the famous 17th-century astronomer.

Foukal is lead author of a review paper on sunspot intensity appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature.

He says that most climate models—including ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—already incorporate the effects of the sun's waxing and waning power on Earth's weather.

But, Foukal said, "this paper says that that particular mechanism [sunspots], which is most intuitive, is probably not having an impact.

Sunspots are magnetic disturbances that appear as cooler, dark patches on the sun's surface. The number of spots cycles over time, reaching a peak every 11 years.

But sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present, research suggests. The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.

"If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said.

[Spee]

below is a bit of mention of sunspot activity and whether it affects the Earth's climate:

culled from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...3-sunspots.html

................

"If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said.

Can't see the forest for the trees ... I guess.

Sunspots are cooler magnetically active areas on the sun. This is of course true. However, there is also a direct correlation between sunspot activity and periods of other intense solar activity, flares, storms, etc. All of these do significantly increase the amount of "solar wind" which is the measured solar particle radiation that heads out into space. This is of course no secret. NASA, other space agencies, and their various scientists have been studying these phenomena for 30-40 years. There is a huge body of empirical evidence.

When these particles collide with the atoms and molecules in earth's atmosphere, they dissipate their energy causing radiative heating, without which none of us would likely survive. Fluctuation in the sun's activity over extended periods is the primary driving force between so-called ice ages and their retreat because of the varying amounts of radiative heat generated.

Man's effect upon global climate relative to the sun's fluctuations, the resultant atmospheric fluctuations and the evaporation/condensation of water through the oceans, is completely insignificant. It is only human ego that deludes people into thinking we are something greater than natural forces.

And of course none of this has anything whatsoever to do with ocean levels and varying tidal sizes in the Thailand coastal areas.

[brahmburgers]

below is a bit of mention of sunspot activity and whether it affects the Earth's climate:

culled from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...3-sunspots.html

................

"If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said.

Can't see the forest for the trees ... I guess.

Sunspots are cooler magnetically active areas on the sun. This is of course true. However, there is also a direct correlation between sunspot activity and periods of other intense solar activity, flares, storms, etc. All of these do significantly increase the amount of "solar wind" which is the measured solar particle radiation that heads out into space. This is of course no secret. NASA, other space agencies, and their various scientists have been studying these phenomena for 30-40 years. There is a huge body of empirical evidence.

When these particles collide with the atoms and molecules in earth's atmosphere, they dissipate their energy causing radiative heating, without which none of us would likely survive. Fluctuation in the sun's activity over extended periods is the primary driving force between so-called ice ages and their retreat because of the varying amounts of radiative heat generated.

Man's effect upon global climate relative to the sun's fluctuations, the resultant atmospheric fluctuations and the evaporation/condensation of water through the oceans, is completely insignificant. It is only human ego that deludes people into thinking we are something greater than natural forces.

And of course none of this has anything whatsoever to do with ocean levels and varying tidal sizes in the Thailand coastal areas.

spee, you use the term 'of course' three times in your post, above. It must be comforting to feel so sure about your assertions.

[VegasVic]

* I mention my sources in the post

* BTW sun spots do belong in this debate. Given that virtually ALL the heat on Earth comes from the Sun, the relative activity of Sun (measured in sun spots) is pretty important. More sunspots = more heat getting to the Earth = higher temperatures on Earth

* The Earth has gone through a period of heating but this has stopped and remained stable for the past decade. In fact, temps have actually reduced from the high point in 1998

* If an indoor gardener wants to improve his yield and growth rate he will pump CO2 into his grow room. CO2 has been around 10 times higher than the current levels in the past (source - ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years)

* The current global warming bandwagon will only bring us more tax. That's what the de facto leader of the global warming movement wants to see

teatree, I am no friend of the "greenies" , but what you have stated here is not the complete story. Sunspot activity occurs in 12 year cycles, the middle of the cycle is called solar munimun where there is very little sunspot activity and the height of the cycle is called solar maximum where there is the most sunspot activity. The last solar minimum was at the end of 2005 into 2006 and the next solar maximum will be during 2012. There are many scientists in this field that expect the solar maximum this time around to be the strongest since 1858, when the northern lights were visable on a daily basis in places as far south as Hawaii and Naples Italy. As a matter of fact there are quite a few solar astronomers and physists that think that the sloar maximum in 2012 may be something approaching a cataclismic event because of the effect it will have on radio waves, telecommunication sattelites and the internet. There is also something else to consider during this solar maximum in 2012 and that is the Precession of the planets (which occurs every 25,800 years) will culminate on the winter solstis in 2012. Scientists have no idea what will happen (if anything at all) on Dec. 21st 2012 when Precession occurs, but we do know that the Mayan calander ends on this date The next few years will be interesting if nothting else!!!

Note to Teatree: Sunspots are a result of magnetic activity within the sun - they don't affect heat output from the sun.

Note to Vegasvic: I've never before heard of "Precession of the planets" but it sounds a lot like "Harmonic Convergence" of awhile back (where the planets somewhat 'aligned' as seen from Earth). The relative configuration of the planets have no bearing on what goes on - on Earth. The only effect such things have is on some peoples' perception of things. Correction, it may have an infinitesimally tiny tidal effect - too small to be measured.

Note to Bhramaburger: Since you seem to have so much time on your hands to post on this nonsensical subject (how Thailand won't be effected by the rising oceans), then perhaps you might find the 30 seconds or so that it would take to google planetary precesion and thereby educate yourself! Might I also suggest that you rethink your hypothesis that the planetary alignment with the center of the milky way on Dec. 21st 2012 will have "no bearing on what happens on Earth", after all there are not to many records from 25,800 years ago to substantiate a claim that this will have no bearing on what happens on Earth! A little education goes a long way

[brahmburgers]

Note to Bhramaburger: Since you seem to have so much time on your hands to post on this nonsensical subject (how Thailand won't be effected by the rising oceans), then perhaps you might find the 30 seconds or so that it would take to google planetary precesion and thereby educate yourself! Might I also suggest that you rethink your hypothesis that the planetary alignment with the center of the milky way on Dec. 21st 2012 will have "no bearing on what happens on Earth", after all there are not to many records from 25,800 years ago to substantiate a claim that this will have no bearing on what happens on Earth! A little education goes a long way

Dear VegasVic, you misspelled my name and the word 'precession' but that's ok. I did look up 'planetary precession' and found a lot of the scientific equivalent of 'shaving hairs.' I saw no mention of how this could affect global warming, though that's not to say it's impossible - and maybe you can introduce a theory in that regard.

I have a friend who resides in Bkk. I once asked him whether he believed in mind-reading - and he told me, without a grin, that he believes in everything esoteric and metaphysical. I don't, but I can still appreciate a person's right to believe in what he chooses - as long as that person doesn't cause harm in the pursuit of such beliefs.

[OlRedEyes]

The internet adds significantly to the natural cycle of global warming, joining planetary percussion , sunspot activity and Jesus out to clip us around the ears for having too much sex at too low a price. And of course, those that have conspired to raise taxes. It's all a convergence of natural phenomena that'll go away if we spend our way out of it.

The ice and glaciers are growing, the North-West passage is all iced up and we should burn more oil. And them damned islanders who are complaining that their homes and crops are being invaded by the sea are barbarians who should be converted or die.

There will always be ostriches, unfortunately. Tell you something, the more you speak to an ostrich, trying to convince it to lift it's head out of the sand, the deeper it buries it. It's a wasted effort, using up valuable time.

/edit: smileys added for the disadvantaged.

Edited September 27, 2008 by OlRedEyes

[animatic]

Satellite records comparing sea ice index of the Arctic May 1980 to May 2008 (Source - The National Snow and Ice Data Center,USA). They are almost identical, so why all the scare stories? Ice free Arctic??? Ridiculous!

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...fields=no_panel

Satellite records comparing sea ice index of the Antarctic May 1980 to May 2008 (Source - The National Snow and Ice Data Center,USA). Since 1980 total ice concentration is up 35% and ice extent is up 21%. Why no headlines about this on CNN?

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...fields=no_panel

Other than the 1.3 MILLION sq Km down from 1980... yeah no change.

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. While slightly above the record-low minimum set in 2007,

this season further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime sea ice extent observed over the past thirty years.

A slight upward anomoly does NOT obliterate a long term trend.

This is more than just the OBVIOUS anecdotal evidence most of can see,

but measured loss of cover on going for 30 years.

There are seriously big money vested interests who want to profit from the ignorant

and grossly misinformed and so pump out bogus, but seeminly offical and plausible

web 'data' to cause and argument over the scientifically irrefutable.

Muddy the waters, cause there is more to muddy with less ice cover.

[dave_boo]

The internet adds significantly to the natural cycle of global warming, joining planetary percussion , sunspot activity and Jesus out to clip us around the ears for having too much sex at too low a price. And of course, those that have conspired to raise taxes. It's all a convergence of natural phenomena that'll go away if we spend our way out of it.

The ice and glaciers are growing, the North-West passage is all iced up and we should burn more oil. And them damned islanders who are complaining that their homes and crops are being invaded by the sea are barbarians who should be converted or die.

There will always be ostriches, unfortunately. Tell you something, the more you speak to an ostrich, trying to convince it to lift it's head out of the sand, the deeper it buries it. It's a wasted effort, using up valuable time.

/edit: smileys added for the disadvantaged.

Not if I can convince enough people about how tasty they are.

[OlRedEyes]

The internet adds significantly to the natural cycle of global warming, joining planetary percussion , sunspot activity and Jesus out to clip us around the ears for having too much sex at too low a price. And of course, those that have conspired to raise taxes. It's all a convergence of natural phenomena that'll go away if we spend our way out of it.

The ice and glaciers are growing, the North-West passage is all iced up and we should burn more oil. And them damned islanders who are complaining that their homes and crops are being invaded by the sea are barbarians who should be converted or die.

There will always be ostriches, unfortunately. Tell you something, the more you speak to an ostrich, trying to convince it to lift it's head out of the sand, the deeper it buries it. It's a wasted effort, using up valuable time.

/edit: smileys added for the disadvantaged.

Not if I can convince enough people about how tasty they are.

May be prophetic words. Will add a whole new dimension to the phrase 'it costs an arm and a leg'.

[Jai Dee]

Bt40m globalwarming award meets opposition

The Natural Resources and Environment Ministry has awarded Bt40 million to a company project that will turn Samut Prakan's Tambon Bang Pu into an antiglobalwarming demonstration site.

However, an academic at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Science yesterday said he did not see how this project would be able to reduce global temperatures.

"The project is not worth the money to be spent," Dr Thanawat Jarupongsakul said.

The project will allocate Bt12 million for making windmills, Bt8 million for installing a wastewatertreatment system, Bt4 million for building bamboo fences and Bt16 million for preparing exhibitions and learning centres.

"Bamboo fences won't last long and will cause many problems. They've been used for many years at Klong Tan. There's no point in demonstrating the use of bamboo fencing along coastal areas any more," Thanawat insisted.

In response, Marine and Coastal Resources Department directorgenฌeral Samran Rakchat explained coastal erosion was eating about 10 metres of land from Bang Pu each year.

"The project we're going to do is a conservation effort, one that is intended to reduce the effects of global warming," he said.

Samran said the project would last one year, after which the results would determine whether it should be expanded to other areas. "If it's successful, we'll launch similar projects in Nakhon Si Thammarat, Rayong, Chanthaburi and Trat.

In a related move, the Royal Thai Army will help the ministry grow mangrove forests in Bang Pu from November 25.

Source: The Nation - 04 November 2008

[Spee]

Bt40m globalwarming award meets opposition

The Natural Resources and Environment Ministry has awarded Bt40 million to a company project that will turn Samut Prakan's Tambon Bang Pu into an antiglobalwarming demonstration site.

However, an academic at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Science yesterday said he did not see how this project would be able to reduce global temperatures.

"The project is not worth the money to be spent," Dr Thanawat Jarupongsakul said.

Source: The Nation - 04 November 2008

A voice of reason in the midst of bureacracy and fraud run amok.