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

[teatree]

This is what happens if scientists dare to stand out of line on man made global warming.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623

Edited November 10, 2008 by teatree

[JetsetBkk]

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

"The UN global warming conference currently under way in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.

The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policy-makers."

Full story: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...f0-274616db87e6

[H2oDunc]

90% of the worlds glaciers are growing. FACT. They just don't tell you about them They tell you instead of the 10%that are shrinking. This has been the COLDEST decade in history but again they don't tell you that. Over 35,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that there is NO scientific proof that co2 has any effect on global temperature. This is all just about control and taxation. It wil be the biggest con in the history of the world when people finally realise it. Have you not wondered why these eco Nazi's stopped calling it Global warming ? Somebody pointed out to them the temperature was actually going down so they quickly changed it to Climate change. So now if the temp goes down its due to co2 if it goes up its co2. Al Gore has personally made over 10 million dollars from carbon off setting.Yet still flies aroud the wold in his private jet.

Ask people now about co2 and they will tell you its a poison that's polluting the atmosphere. Plants live on the stuff for crying out loud!, its what they breathe. man is responsible for 2% of al the co2 in the atmosphere yet we ae being made to pay for 100%. Check out this link to find out how cold its ACTUALLY been and how cold its going to get

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

[sorensen]

90% of the worlds glaciers are growing. FACT. They just don't tell you about them They tell you instead of the 10%that are shrinking. This has been the COLDEST decade in history but again they don't tell you that. Over 35,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that there is NO scientific proof that co2 has any effect on global temperature. This is all just about control and taxation. It wil be the biggest con in the history of the world when people finally realise it. Have you not wondered why these eco Nazi's stopped calling it Global warming ? Somebody pointed out to them the temperature was actually going down so they quickly changed it to Climate change. So now if the temp goes down its due to co2 if it goes up its co2. Al Gore has personally made over 10 million dollars from carbon off setting.Yet still flies aroud the wold in his private jet.

Ask people now about co2 and they will tell you its a poison that's polluting the atmosphere. Plants live on the stuff for crying out loud!, its what they breathe. man is responsible for 2% of al the co2 in the atmosphere yet we ae being made to pay for 100%. Check out this link to find out how cold its ACTUALLY been and how cold its going to get

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Ehmmm, I am no tree hugger and love when people burn oil, the more the better, but dude, you don't really believe in the above stuff do you?

I have been living in China and seen the devastating effects of excess pollution: Grey sky, nose and eyes sore from the sulfur.

Anyway, I see you are in Chumporn, my favorit place in Thailand and plan to relocate there soon. We could have some interesting conversations over a beer.

[H2oDunc]

90% of the worlds glaciers are growing. FACT. They just don't tell you about them They tell you instead of the 10%that are shrinking. This has been the COLDEST decade in history but again they don't tell you that. Over 35,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that there is NO scientific proof that co2 has any effect on global temperature. This is all just about control and taxation. It wil be the biggest con in the history of the world when people finally realise it. Have you not wondered why these eco Nazi's stopped calling it Global warming ? Somebody pointed out to them the temperature was actually going down so they quickly changed it to Climate change. So now if the temp goes down its due to co2 if it goes up its co2. Al Gore has personally made over 10 million dollars from carbon off setting.Yet still flies aroud the wold in his private jet.

Ask people now about co2 and they will tell you its a poison that's polluting the atmosphere. Plants live on the stuff for crying out loud!, its what they breathe. man is responsible for 2% of al the co2 in the atmosphere yet we ae being made to pay for 100%. Check out this link to find out how cold its ACTUALLY been and how cold its going to get

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Ehmmm, I am no tree hugger and love when people burn oil, the more the better, but dude, you don't really believe in the above stuff do you?

I have been living in China and seen the devastating effects of excess pollution: Grey sky, nose and eyes sore from the sulfur.

Anyway, I see you are in Chumporn, my favorit place in Thailand and plan to relocate there soon. We could have some interesting conversations over a beer.

I am fully with you on pollution. But co2 is not the same as pollution. Thats my whole argument co2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT! mercury, cadmium, phenol etc yes. OIL spillages yes. But not co2. water vapour causes more green house effect than co2. Cows farting in the fields cause over 20 times the amount of so called warming than co2 but we don't tax cows. One volcano eruption will wipe out al of the so called measures taken to reduce co2. Its all a CON. Plain and simple. Im very anti pollution but very pro co2.

I think its very egotistical to think we mere mortals can control the planet. WE CAN"T

The owner of the weather channel in the USA, not some numpty but a climatologist who knows a thing or 2 about the weather, is suing Al Gore in a court of law to prove that co2 has no effect on the climate. Its pointless arguing with the eco Nazi's as its become more of a religion where science has no bearing on fact and any person challenging this belief is treated like a heretic of old. Its all about control of the now developing countries. Who the hel_l are we to tell these countries they cannot utilise cheap coal or other fuels to develp after we have used then for years. Control and taxation is all this crap boils down to. Global warming

BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[henryalleman]

Some 20 years ago another famous Thai professor declared that Asian people where immune for HIV Virus, therefore could not get AIDS, because they had an different DNA structure.

And we all know he was correct also.

[henryalleman]

The Big Melt Coming Faster Than Expected

By Stephen Leahy

06 April, 2006

Inter Press Service

Excerpt:

"Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Cambodia, along with China, could suffer sharp cuts in their gross domestic product as a result of a rise in sea level, it added. "

More here:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:lExIBOq...t=clnk&cd=9

And, to make this thread even more controversial and contradictionary:

"Will Sea-Level really fall in the Gulf of Thailand?"

Small excerpt:

" Analasys of 56 years data............................revealed that sea levels are falling slowly, ..........who reported that sea-level falls in the low latitudes and the Gulf of Thailand of 0-50 millimeters...."

From (22 pages in PDF):

http://www2.psu.ac.th/PresidentOffice/EduS..._level_fall.pdf

Enjoy reading

LaoPo

I don't know much about science but I saw various documentaries on TV where some Illands in the pacific are sinking away in the see and people on it are abandon them. I saw documentaries about Bangladesh where people are in a constant run to higher places, and that's in the gulf of Bengale not so far away from the Andaman see. I see that the ice cap on Antarctica is melting very fast. I see the ice cap of the Himalaya is melting very fast also. I know that Bangkok is sinking every year a litle bit. So I'm not so sure that this will have no affect on Thailand at all.

I only know when you talk to 5 experts all 5 of them contradict the other 4. So better we prepare ourself for the worst and hope for the best.

[JetsetBkk]

I am fully with you on pollution. But co2 is not the same as pollution. Thats my whole argument co2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT! ...

I agree. From Wikipedia:

Photosynthesis is a metabolic pathway that converts light energy into chemical energy. Its initial substrates are carbon dioxide and water; the energy source is sunlight and the end-products are oxygen and carbohydrates, such as sucrose, glucose or starch.

This process is one of the most important biochemical pathways, since nearly all life on Earth either directly or indirectly depends on it as a source of energy.

[brahmburgers]

I keep seeing and hearing reports on TV and radio and other media of ice fields lessening - talking mostly about Greenland and the two polar regions. Are all the reports false, or conspiracies aimed at falsifying the truth? I don't think so. The people that are best able to assess such changes, are those who live and/or are doing research right at those regions. Direct interviews with Greenlanders had them agreeing that there's a lot less icy terrain than there used to be. Would they be lying? Why?

All serious (non-conspiracy, non-esoteric) science being done in polar regions point at dramatically less ice cover, retreating glaciers, and polar bears (and other fauna) with smaller ranges.

Those who say these changes aren't happening are in denial or perhaps take some glee in being contrarian.

The changes are subtle or dramatic, depending on a person's perspective, but the data is there from a variety of sources - showing the polar regions (including Greenland) are definitely going through a warming trend - and some would say the warming is accelerating.

[mistresserika]

Don't the Thai's realise that an April fool joke is played on the 1st April, before 12.00 (noon)

[teatree]

I keep seeing and hearing reports on TV and radio and other media of ice fields lessening - talking mostly about Greenland and the two polar regions. Are all the reports false, or conspiracies aimed at falsifying the truth? I don't think so. The people that are best able to assess such changes, are those who live and/or are doing research right at those regions. Direct interviews with Greenlanders had them agreeing that there's a lot less icy terrain than there used to be. Would they be lying? Why?

All serious (non-conspiracy, non-esoteric) science being done in polar regions point at dramatically less ice cover, retreating glaciers, and polar bears (and other fauna) with smaller ranges.

Those who say these changes aren't happening are in denial or perhaps take some glee in being contrarian.

The changes are subtle or dramatic, depending on a person's perspective, but the data is there from a variety of sources - showing the polar regions (including Greenland) are definitely going through a warming trend - and some would say the warming is accelerating.

The Earth went through a period of warming, the ice retreated. This is beyond doubt. The Earth is currently going through a period of cooling and the ice is increasing. The point is that all of this is NATURAL. There is nothing unusual going on when you step back and look at the climatic cycles that occur over decades and centuries. Do you expect the climate to stay the same for eternity? Do you realise that the Earth has been both much hotter and much cooler than it is now? 10,000 years ago Northern Europe was covered in ice! Where there is now a desert there was once a lush rain forest. The only constant is change.

Whether or not you believe there is some kind of conspiracy going on, it is clear that you are being deceived and lied to.

Ask yourself why you don't hear about the 650 scientists who have signed the U.S. Senate Minority Report report challenging the manmade global warming theory.

Or why the news doesn't report the fact that the Antarctic in Dec 08 was larger than in Dec 79 (the year the records began), 17.3% for ice extent & 18.3% for ice concentration - source -National Snow and Ice Data Center satellite images, University of Colorado. But instead is constantly showing film of ice breaking away during the spring time melt, something that is as natural as leaves falling from a tree in Autumn.

Why were we given warning of an 'ice free' Arctic this year, when the ice only decreased by around 10%.

Or why was the polar bear classified as an endangered species when experts studying them have recorded that their numbers are at an all time high.

ETC

ETC

ETC

You had better wish for global warming, because the alternative, global cooling, is far worse.

Edited January 9, 2009 by teatree

[brahmburgers]

From Bangkok Post, March 17, '09

Bangkok seeks Dutch help to avoid sinking

Report finds parts of capital lost in 40 years

By: SUPOJ WANCHAROEN

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration is seeking advice from Dutch experts on how to prevent coastal erosion and floods after a study revealed parts of Bangkok will sink within 40 years.

The report - released by a consultant who received financial support from the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation - predicted Bangkok, Samut Prakan, Samut Songkhram and Samut Sakhon would bear the blunt of climate change which would increase the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand by more than 32cm. Worse, more than half of the impact is expected to occur in western parts of Bangkok, especially Bang Khunthian district.

Bang Khunthian has seen five kilometres of shoreline recede because of coastal erosion, according to Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, who yesterday described the situation as "very frightening."

The study found more than a million people in Bang Khunthian, Bang Kae and Bang Bon districts in Bangkok and Samut Prakan's Phra Samut Chedi district would be hardest hit by damage to their residential areas, estimated at 140 billion baht.

"We cannot take it easy on this," MR Sukhumbhand said.

The City Hall decided to consult flood experts from the Netherlands, which is situated under the mean sea level (MSL).

"Its areas are lower than the sea by between six and nine metres below MSL, but people have lived without problems for more than 100 years," MR Sukhumbhand said.

Last year, City Hall announced a plan to build T-groins, or detached breakwaters, off Bang Khunthian coast to soften strong waves. More than a square kilometre of land there has sunk.

MR Sukhumbhand said he would also take into consideration a suggestion to increase the height of the embankment along the Chao Phraya river.

The finding paints a dimmer prospect of higher sea levels in the Gulf than earlier forecast by experts who estimated the increase in sea level would be 29cm. The new study is aimed at encouraging Thailand and neighbouring countries to work together to deal with the challenges of coastal erosion.

[brahmburgers]

as we're not supposed to 'editorialize' within news items (previous post), I'll do so here:

The Bkk Post article mentions rises in mean water levels of between 29 and 32 cm within the next 40 years. It also mentions such things as hiring Dutch experts (to build dikes, etc) and ways to combat soil erosion.

Nobody asked me, but from the wealth of info I've garnered about global warming, I reckon the Gulf of Thailand will rise by considerably more that an average of 32 cm in 40 years. One reason is polar ice caps are melting at an accelerated pace. The more ice melts, the less reflection of the sun, and the more sea water there is to absorb sunlight and heat up, ....all that, and more, accelerates the melting processes.

Regarding building dikes and heightening walls for the river to flow through the city: I think it's like trying to patch up a ship with a rotting hull. Best would be to make dynamic plans to move the city to several 'satellite cities' - all on higher ground. Thailand is not starved for land, as some countries, so relocating city functions and populations is not impossible. Thais need to know that not everything Thai needs to revolve around Bangkok.

There can be areas for universities, areas for industry, areas for Royal properties, areas for wats, and so on. Bigger is not better in regard to cities. Currently, Bangkok has one of the lowest park space per square Km (or per capita) ratio of any large city. Why maintain that? Find a new region where a city can be planned with more parks and open spaces.

Nearly every day, there's a letter in one of the major newspapers from someone who resides on a Bangkok soi which the letter-writer finds (after spending millions of baht) has become a living hel_l - for one reason or another (usually horrible noise). The letters are usually from farang, because farang are more open about complaining than Thais - who learn from an early age to complain as little as humanly possible. One big irony about living in pre-flood Bangkok is it has the most expensive real estate per sq.M in Thailand, yet it's arguably the most unpleasant place to reside.

reason for edit: corrected cm for inches

Edited March 18, 2009 by brahmburgers

[Gary A]

Bangkok has been sinking for MANY years. That's a fact and if you want to see the proof, drive from Bangkok to Chachoensao. You will see the bridges built on pilings that are nearly two meters above the road. When those bridges were built, they were at the same height as the roads. I was involved in building a new factory and a mistake was made by forgetting the huge pilings for a loading dock. They had to use a small pile driver. That loading dock sunk 6 inches in a year. Bangkok is built on a big sponge and the more water that is pumped out of that sponge, the more the city sinks. It has nothing to do with the water level in the Gulf.

[brahmburgers]

Bangkok is built on a big sponge and the more water that is pumped out of that sponge, the more the city sinks. It has nothing to do with the water level in the Gulf.

I concur that Bkk is sinking for various reasons. Whomever got the bright idea of calling it 'Venice of the East' wasn't correct about comparing it to Venice in terms of charm or architectural beauty, but was unwittingly right about comparing it to Venice - in that both cities are sinking.

However, I beg to differ with Gary's last sentence. Au contraire, Bangkok's impending flooding will have a lot to do with rising sea levels. Indeed, higher seas will surely exacerbate the problems. There will come times, in the not-too-distant future, when high tides, combined with tidal surges (perhaps triggered by a tsunami or volcanic event) - and the city of garbage-choked canals will become more than soaked. One to two meter standing water levels downtown are possible.

If a person is compelled to stick in that sinking city, you'd do well to build yourself an ark in the backyard. Oops, sorry, no one but VIP's have backyards, and they've already got extra mansions on tax-exempt properties in the provinces - higher elevation, I'm sure.

....ever get that sinking feeling?

Edited March 19, 2009 by brahmburgers

[CFIT]

I keep seeing and hearing reports on TV and radio and other media of ice fields lessening - talking mostly about Greenland and the two polar regions. Are all the reports false, or conspiracies aimed at falsifying the truth? I don't think so. The people that are best able to assess such changes, are those who live and/or are doing research right at those regions. Direct interviews with Greenlanders had them agreeing that there's a lot less icy terrain than there used to be. Would they be lying? Why?

All serious (non-conspiracy, non-esoteric) science being done in polar regions point at dramatically less ice cover, retreating glaciers, and polar bears (and other fauna) with smaller ranges.

Those who say these changes aren't happening are in denial or perhaps take some glee in being contrarian.

The changes are subtle or dramatic, depending on a person's perspective, but the data is there from a variety of sources - showing the polar regions (including Greenland) are definitely going through a warming trend - and some would say the warming is accelerating.

The Earth went through a period of warming, the ice retreated. This is beyond doubt. The Earth is currently going through a period of cooling and the ice is increasing. The point is that all of this is NATURAL. There is nothing unusual going on when you step back and look at the climatic cycles that occur over decades and centuries. Do you expect the climate to stay the same for eternity? Do you realise that the Earth has been both much hotter and much cooler than it is now? 10,000 years ago Northern Europe was covered in ice! Where there is now a desert there was once a lush rain forest. The only constant is change.

Whether or not you believe there is some kind of conspiracy going on, it is clear that you are being deceived and lied to.

Ask yourself why you don't hear about the 650 scientists who have signed the U.S. Senate Minority Report report challenging the manmade global warming theory.

Or why the news doesn't report the fact that the Antarctic in Dec 08 was larger than in Dec 79 (the year the records began), 17.3% for ice extent & 18.3% for ice concentration - source -National Snow and Ice Data Center satellite images, University of Colorado. But instead is constantly showing film of ice breaking away during the spring time melt, something that is as natural as leaves falling from a tree in Autumn.

Why were we given warning of an 'ice free' Arctic this year, when the ice only decreased by around 10%.

Or why was the polar bear classified as an endangered species when experts studying them have recorded that their numbers are at an all time high.

ETC

ETC

ETC

You had better wish for global warming, because the alternative, global cooling, is far worse.

Blah Blah Blah What a load of fabrications .

So like Cha Am Jamal, you certainly are a one man propaganda machine for the coal lobby with the letters to Editors.

It's not pollution causing global warming, it's energy from the sun being trapped because of CO 2 and not allowed to reflect back out. a super volacano will not increase this , but decrease the actual amount of heat allowed into the atmosphere through simple shading.

Edited March 20, 2009 by CFIT

[brahmburgers]

I suggest you go to Switzerland, N.Pole, Antarctica, anywhere that's had historic ice cover, glaciers, etc, and see for yourself and/or ask the locals - especially scientific-minded people on hand. You'll find, without exception, that traditional ice cover has reduced dramatically in recent years.

Yes, summer brings natural cylces of melting, but recent years have had profound melting - with ice not being replaced. Greenland, Arctic, Antarctica are losing roughly 50 cubic miles of ice each (ice not being replaced in winter) and scientific projections say that sobering trend will be exacerbated in coming decades.

Why were we given warning of an 'ice free' Arctic this year, when the ice only decreased by around 10%.

the warnings were for ice-free arctic in 10 to 25 years, not 'this year'

[yumidesign]

my scientist friend in australia says that there is no real evidence of the thing the media and others are calling 'global warming'

"I also discovered the NASA Aqua satellite found back in March that CO2 actually drives out a much greater greenhouse gas, water vapour. This means the atmosphere balances itself naturally yet although it was accepted it hasn't been acted upon, and only reported in The Australian as far as I can find.

There is an excellent and simple site giving all the latest figures on global warming and the conclusion is 'nothing's happening'. How long it'll take for the actual truth to be accepted by the campaigners is anyone's guess but the more the figures are published the harder it will be to ignore them as they currently do.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/...iew_OISM150.pdf

32,000 qualified scientists have also signed the petition there is not enough evidence to claim man made global warming. Who listens to them?"

[on-on]

This kind of thing can only be taken serious in a country without bathtubs.

[plachon]

my scientist friend in australia says that there is no real evidence of the thing the media and others are calling 'global warming'

"I also discovered the NASA Aqua satellite found back in March that CO2 actually drives out a much greater greenhouse gas, water vapour. This means the atmosphere balances itself naturally yet although it was accepted it hasn't been acted upon, and only reported in The Australian as far as I can find.

There is an excellent and simple site giving all the latest figures on global warming and the conclusion is 'nothing's happening'. How long it'll take for the actual truth to be accepted by the campaigners is anyone's guess but the more the figures are published the harder it will be to ignore them as they currently do.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/...iew_OISM150.pdf

32,000 qualified scientists have also signed the petition there is not enough evidence to claim man made global warming. Who listens to them?"

Clearly a whole heap of "everything is going to be alright" nutcases like you, H20Dunc, Spee et al. who want to ignore scientific consensus around the main human activity-related causes of global warming. Let's hope you haven't invested too heavily in beach front property on a vulnerable coastline like another one of the Al Gore lynch mob here.

[Gary A]

Is the earth warming or cooling? There are many arguments both ways. Regardless of what is happening, man is NOT going to change it. Man will be likely responsible for poisoning the earth and upsetting the balance of nature as far as living creatures but he is NOT going to change a temperature trend. It takes a huge ego to think that man can alter mother nature. Only the man who invented the Internet could preach such a thing.

[plachon]

Is the earth warming or cooling? There are many arguments both ways. Regardless of what is happening, man is NOT going to change it. Man will be likely responsible for poisoning the earth and upsetting the balance of nature as far as living creatures but he is NOT going to change a temperature trend. It takes a huge ego to think that man can alter mother nature. Only the man who invented the Internet could preach such a thing.

No, Gary, there are not many arguments both ways over whether the earth is warming or cooling. There is incontrovertible long term evidence from climate stations and empirical observations of glacier and ice sheet melting and dozens of other indicators which show the earth is warming. The arguments tend to rage about what is the cause of this unnatural warming trend. However, the deniers and doubters of anthropogenic global warming are now very much in a fringe rump who tend to spout extreme claims not backed up by sound scientific evidence to get their voices heard. The mainstream media used to buy it for the last decade, but even the most sceptical news media now seems to have bought into the concept of AGW, and not a moment too soon. The debate is now at what to do about it and most sane, rational human beings accept that humans can not only change earth's climate, but with a little bit of understanding about the causes and drivers, we can also reverse those changes by combined actions and changes in consumption/production. That's why government's meet together in places like Kyoto, Bali and this year, Copenhagen to discuss such matters.

[JetsetBkk]

...Why were we given warning of an 'ice free' Arctic this year, when the ice only decreased by around 10%...

the warnings were for ice-free arctic in 10 to 25 years, not 'this year'

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News

There's always some cheap rag trying to sell more copies.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...north-pole.html

[dave_boo]

Is the earth warming or cooling? There are many arguments both ways. Regardless of what is happening, man is NOT going to change it. Man will be likely responsible for poisoning the earth and upsetting the balance of nature as far as living creatures but he is NOT going to change a temperature trend. It takes a huge ego to think that man can alter mother nature. Only the man who invented the Internet could preach such a thing.

It depends on where you live. If you're an egotistical European, you'll point to LOCAL weather patterns and insist that what you are observing corresponds to the rest of the world. If you look at the overall events you'll see that it's warming. Doesn't make sense? Consider London. Located on the 51st parallel, it has an average temperature of between 8 to 19 C. Compare that to the temperatures of other non-European cities that lay on the same parallel. Irkutsk, Russia(-19 to +18C), Calgary, Canada(-9 to +16), etc. You'll quickly conclude that for some reason Europe, England especially, has something going on that is maintaining 'artificially' high temperatures. A little hint, that reason is the Gulf Stream (and no, not the airplane manufacturer!) So, if that stream were to get interrupted, Europe would lose the warming benefit of it.

How can it get interrupted? Melting ice from the polar region and Greenland. As the ice melts, since it has little salinity, it 'rides' on top of the saltier ocean current. Warmer, saltier, water is foced downwards As its temperature is also cooler there is convection from the warmer Gulfstream. Since this temperature exchange is taking place well short of Europe, the original temperature is not carried onwards.

I think that a reconsideration of your beliefs in man's abilities is in order. People used to think that man couldn't split the atom (which brings up a point), but we proved them wrong. In fact, considering that 600 milligrams was enough to kill 66 000 people instantly, why wouldn't dumping 8.4x10⁹ metric tonnes of CO₂ into the air each year cause problems? And before people get all pissy by pointing out that the atmosphere has 5.14x10¹⁸ metric tons of gas(which means that humans are 'only' adding 0.000 000 01% to it), the total amount of CO₂ present in the atmosphere is 3.0×10¹⁵ (which means that humans are adding 0.000 03% to the carbon total each year). Referring back to the atomic bomb example, if 66 000 people (going to assume an average weight of 50kg) were killed by 0.6kg of material, that means that it took only 0.000 002% of the uranium to kill each person. See how only trying to take solace in really, really small numbers is wrong? Things add up, often in ways that humans can't identify in time. I think it's more egotistical to think that we know enough to state with certainty that humans can not and never will affect the climate. To be honest, I'm not sure that we can. I am sure that taking steps to ensure that we are NOT part of a change isn't a bad idea, much like the fact that in high school I was never sure I was going to get laid, but that didn't stop me from carrying a condom on the chance that it could happen!

[brahmburgers]

Nearly all reputable scientists (climatologists especially) now agree there's a severe warming trend on this planet. Even for those who choose to buck the trend (which several T.visa members do) - I think we can all agree that the world is getting seriously polluted - and our one species is exacerbating it.

So, whether or not a person chooses to agree with the overwhelming data supporting global warming (at least partially caused by human activities), we should all do what we can to reduce carbon emissions.

Don't want to wave my own flag, but wanted to mention: I have four properties in northern Thailand. Two are rural and are getting solar set-ups - so as to be 100% off the electric grid. I also set up solar pre-heat tanks for hot water - where possible. I also plan to get a battery powered golf-cart type vehicle. If anyone knows a person/place to get such a vehicle in Thailand (2nd hand preferable) - let me know.

Am still working on cleaning up other aspects of my act; example, I still use internal combustion engines, but am endeavoring to ease up on those as much as possible.

In a general sense: if anyone has knowledge and/or skills that can help others use less gas-powered vehicles and/or away from polluting appliances, SHOW OTHERS HOW THEY CAN DO IT ALSO!

Best is to find a way to influence younger generations: Perhaps do lecture and/or demonstration with schoolkids. They really need the exposure to cleaner lifestyles. Ordinary school systems and home environments in Thailand have zero positive influences in that regard. Kids spend most of their waking hours outside of school watching screaming soap opera on TV - crammed with assinine katoys and skin-whitening cream adverts.

[canuckamuck]

Nearly all reputable scientists

I love that line. By reputable of course you mean, funded by large corporations, foundations or governments which have much to gain by fear mongering. I'd like to see the statistics on independent scientists with conscience and integrity.

It is good your are doing your part to limit pollution, we should all do the same. Carbon is not pollution however, and ocean temperature modulates CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. This was common scientific knowledge before there was money in demonizing CO2.

[plachon]

Nearly all reputable scientists

I love that line. By reputable of course you mean, funded by large corporations, foundations or governments which have much to gain by fear mongering. I'd like to see the statistics on independent scientists with conscience and integrity.

It is good your are doing your part to limit pollution, we should all do the same. Carbon is not pollution however, and ocean temperature modulates CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. This was common scientific knowledge before there was money in demonizing CO2.

Quick reality check for Canuckamuck, who seems to labouring under the misapprehension that there is a large body of scientists "out there" doing independent science in their lofts, garden sheds and garages not supported by large corporations, foundations or governments. Helllllooooooo! Wakey-wakey! This sort of image of Einstein-tousled "scientists" is the stuff of Back to the Future movies and Hollywood fantasy. The reality is, of course, that most scientists are supported by the above mentioned employers and in the past have had far more reason to not "fear monger" or play up the possibility of AGW, becauses the biggest pollutuers and contributers to the problem were themselves, embodied most perfectly in the oil industry which has spent millions in the past actively denying climate change and trying to destroy any possible links between global warming and human activity, in particular the release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. And the fruit of their mis-information campaign is evident in the confusion of yourself and others on this thread who still want to believe that there is no link and hey, us little humans could never actually do anything that could impact "mother nature". That would just be too egotistical wouldn't it, like thinking that there's a god up there looking down on us all? Climate change is nothing more than a new religion, dreamt up to keep us all docile and under the command of the new freedom-controlling doctrine of High Priest Gore et Al Greenies. "Booo!!!!!!!! Hissss!!!!!!!! We're too clever for you! We know science is a lie and scientists are not-independent. Give us the statistics to prove it!"

Well, especially for you lot, here's a report from today's Grauniad that shows we've got more than just climate change to worry about, when considering man's impact on the planet, but over-population and growing crises in food production and water availability for all, especially the poorest people in some of the poorest countries on earth. A "perfect storm" is coming, according to some of the brightest and best scientists in the land, from the UK's chief scientific advisor right through to James Lovelock, who used to be employed by NASA and was one of the earliest scientists to highlight the links betweeen mans' activity and global climate change, but has since forged a truly independent path of scientific inquiry. You would do well to read one of his many books on Gaia theory, if you are actually interested in wider scientific discovery, rather than narrow hyperbole and belief in marginal "scientific" belief in climate change denial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/2...ference-britain

[canuckamuck]

Nearly all reputable scientists

I love that line. By reputable of course you mean, funded by large corporations, foundations or governments which have much to gain by fear mongering. I'd like to see the statistics on independent scientists with conscience and integrity.

It is good your are doing your part to limit pollution, we should all do the same. Carbon is not pollution however, and ocean temperature modulates CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. This was common scientific knowledge before there was money in demonizing CO2.

Quick reality check for Canuckamuck, who seems to labouring under the misapprehension that there is a large body of scientists "out there" doing independent science in their lofts, garden sheds and garages not supported by large corporations, foundations or governments. Helllllooooooo! Wakey-wakey! This sort of image of Einstein-tousled "scientists" is the stuff of Back to the Future movies and Hollywood fantasy. The reality is, of course, that most scientists are supported by the above mentioned employers and in the past have had far more reason to not "fear monger" or play up the possibility of AGW, becauses the biggest pollutuers and contributers to the problem were themselves, embodied most perfectly in the oil industry which has spent millions in the past actively denying climate change and trying to destroy any possible links between global warming and human activity, in particular the release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. And the fruit of their mis-information campaign is evident in the confusion of yourself and others on this thread who still want to believe that there is no link and hey, us little humans could never actually do anything that could impact "mother nature". That would just be too egotistical wouldn't it, like thinking that there's a god up there looking down on us all? Climate change is nothing more than a new religion, dreamt up to keep us all docile and under the command of the new freedom-controlling doctrine of High Priest Gore et Al Greenies. "Booo!!!!!!!! Hissss!!!!!!!! We're too clever for you! We know science is a lie and scientists are not-independent. Give us the statistics to prove it!"

Well, especially for you lot, here's a report from today's Grauniad that shows we've got more than just climate change to worry about, when considering man's impact on the planet, but over-population and growing crises in food production and water availability for all, especially the poorest people in some of the poorest countries on earth. A "perfect storm" is coming, according to some of the brightest and best scientists in the land, from the UK's chief scientific advisor right through to James Lovelock, who used to be employed by NASA and was one of the earliest scientists to highlight the links betweeen mans' activity and global climate change, but has since forged a truly independent path of scientific inquiry. You would do well to read one of his many books on Gaia theory, if you are actually interested in wider scientific discovery, rather than narrow hyperbole and belief in marginal "scientific" belief in climate change denial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/2...ference-britain

Just a few posts back we had Jetset's post number 482

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=2434961

Here are some highlights:

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore

"I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

These are real scientists, and they disagree and they make everything you just said look like utter tosh.

When you get your nobel prize, you can decide you know more than they do, but for know, I think you would be best to admit dissent is growing and at high levels.

I will leave you with my favorite quote so far

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

[dave_boo]

Just a few posts back we had Jetset's post number 482

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=2434961

Here are some highlights:

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore

"I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

These are real scientists, and they disagree and they make everything you just said look like utter tosh.

When you get your nobel prize, you can decide you know more than they do, but for know, I think you would be best to admit dissent is growing and at high levels.

I will leave you with my favorite quote so far

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Yes they are real scientists, but did you notice that the majority of them are speaking outside their field? So <deleted> is a GEOLOGIST doing offering his opinion on climate change? Ditto for a Physicist, a pencil pusher at a technology and research department of a uni,a paleontologist, etc.

If we're to believe that this is exactly what Mr. Haplo Smit said, he's an idiot who believes that discarding information (perhaps that which doesn't fit into his preconceived notions?) is the correct answer to understanding models.

Mr. James A Peden. Publishes 2 (two!) papers, the only one of which to be cited at all does not even have his name as first author. In fact, neither of them have a thing to do with climatology-and they were published ~40 (forty!) years ago. You do know what he does now, right? Web design--hardly the celebrated scientist that would be able to debunk real scientists.

Delgado Domingos. Has a degree in Mechanical engineering. Searching for those 150 published articles was a waste of time; either they've been buried by other * Delgado Domingos who have published since him (meaning that he has published nothing for peer review in quite some time) and or they've been on a subject that does not cover climatology.

Dr. Joanne Simpson did not debunk climate change, but true to being a scientist, she remains skeptical. For those that either did not stay awake during the science classes, that's the true foundation of science. The fact that those who are in the field have a hypothesis and are putting it to the test to determine if in fact it is a theory are demonstrating the same traits. If you wish to focus on the "no longer affliated.." part, read up on this lady. Here's a quote from her NASA bio "Although Simpson’s praises have been sung publicly as an example of a woman who has defied the odds and the male chauvinism of her profession". So that section of the quote isn't quite so memorable if she's been doing exactly that, for real or supposed, her entire life.

[brahmburgers]

Yikes, this debate here on T.Visa is getting interestingly technical.

The quote from Geologist Dr. David Gee: "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" ...is astounding in itself. How does he explain whole giant glaciers disappearing (and not recovering) in places where such glaciers existed for hundreds of years. How does he explain that Europe, Australia, N.America, are registering several of their top 10 all-time highest annual temperature averages within the past 10 years? How does he explain fields of lakes on Greenland, where lakes historically never existed earlier?

And Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland saying, "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." Duh, hello Mr Smit: Climate models can be used several ways: to explain what happened earlier, to explain what is happening now, and as projections for future events.

I admit, I'm not a Nobel prize winner. Neither do I have a personal axe to grind against Gore - as some of the quoted scientists appear to have (accolade-envy, perhaps?). I know human overpopulation is a dire threat to the other species of this planet. It's not something that's going to happen some time in the future - it's going on right now! The carrying capacity of this planet for our one species has long been passed. Whether or not one chooses to believe in global warming, the problem of too many people scrambling after too few resources is real. With masses of people, comes large-scale habitat destruction and pollution. It's been happening since Babylonian times and is deepening month by month.

Actually, the economic tsunami might be offering a tad bit of relief, as rapacious consumers aren't buying as many polluting machines and fossil fuels as they would ordinarily buy - if their credit cards had no limits - as before. .....and developers aren't as credit fueled to 'pave paradise, put in a parking lot' (to quote the great folk singer Joni Mitchell).