THE WEEK THAT WAS Anyone for Venice? It’s that time when Thailand - Bangkok in particular - might disappear altogether

[Reigntax]

On 9/3/2022 at 9:02 PM, Lacessit said:

It's generally agreed global warming is the result of anthropomorphic emissions of carbon dioxide. The trend upwards since the Industrial Revolution is unmistakable.

 

You can dismiss the statement 95% of scientists agree. That ignores the fact only 1% of the world's population has scientific training at the tertiary level. We have far more politicians and lawyers.

 

 

False.

it’s generally agreed that temperature cycles both warming and cooling, are a natural cycle that have occurred numerous times throughout history and did so well before any known existence of mankind.

This variation occurs due do many variables including catastrophic events outside of human controls.

it’s also possible that human development accelerates this change.. whether that is good or bad is unknown.

 

The problem you have like most climate radicals is you call anyone who opposed your view a “climate denier”.

This is natural because you, or others similar, don’t like to have all the answers but aren’t willing to admit it. So it’s a way of degrading any peer review because the obvious flaws will be exposed.

 

I always ask people similar to yourself, so if you know everything and are so certain about it, then what is the best temperature. 
what we have today?

2 degrees cooler?

2 degrees warmer?

 

But you won’t answer that question. If you even try, you will skirt around giving a definite answer.

has any “scientist” put their reputation on the line by stating the idea temperature? No and they won’t.

 

But why not? I thought science was exact and surely these experts know everything already?

Like you, better to call people with opposed view as “ deniers” rather than prove your theory.

 

The complete opposite of what good science is.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by onthedarkside
flame comments removed

[Reigntax]

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Prediction of the future is based on models. They are only as good as the input data. When peak oil was talked about in the 70's, no-one knew the US was sitting on a bonanza of shale oil, or that Australia would become one of the world's biggest gas producers.

 

Focus on what is happening NOW, verified by measurement. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at unprecedented rates. Australia has had record interior heat cells over the past decade. Greenland has lost a significant amount of its ice cover. Iceland lost 7% of its glaciers in the last two decades. You think those trends are going to magically reverse?

Did they happen on previous climate cycles to the same extent or more?

 

how did they magically remediate during or after the warm cycle peaks?

 

Magic wands and spells? 

 

Yes. Prediction of the future is based on modelling. Unfortunately the modelling is flawed and lacks accurate information and knowledge on all the variables.

 

Therefore, they are nothing more accurate that a random guess!!

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Reigntax

[Reigntax]

25 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Prediction of the future is based on models. They are only as good as the input data. When peak oil was talked about in the 70's, no-one knew the US was sitting on a bonanza of shale oil, or that Australia would become one of the world's biggest gas producers.

 

Focus on what is happening NOW, verified by measurement. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at unprecedented rates. Australia has had record interior heat cells over the past decade. Greenland has lost a significant amount of its ice cover. Iceland lost 7% of its glaciers in the last two decades. You think those trends are going to magically reverse?

Don’t you just love it.

yes, our predictions were wrong in the past because we didn’t have all the information.

 

But you must believe us now, even though we don’t have accurate data for our modelling, this time we are correct. We know what we are saying even though our knowledge lacks accuracy.

 

 

[bristolgeoff]

This is common news or knowledge will bangkok  be under water in a few years.lots of talk by the experts.Does anyone really know.But floods happen every year in all parts of thailand

[Reigntax]

4 hours ago, bristolgeoff said:

This is common news or knowledge will bangkok  be under water in a few years.lots of talk by the experts.Does anyone really know.But floods happen every year in all parts of thailand

Yes. Bangkok will gradually go underwater but the cause is not climate change. The cause Is development on a natural river delta that changes the characteristic’s of how normal discharge would occur.

its no different to any other river system.

 

Without any development, the annual flooding would deposit silt, sand and plant matter on the banks gradually raising the land levels. As the get higher, instead of 100’s of small creeks discharging, there would be a few major and vast areas of land would dry out, some only being exposed during higher level floods.

But Bangkok’s development has changed this. Silt build up cannot occur on the hard surfaces and the level of any piece of land remains at the height from the very day any development occurred. The silt is just being discharged into the Gulf.

 

The flooding is not increasing. It’s just the natural variation to the rain cycle and frequency.

But development is increasing which results in more disturbance to the natural flow paths, more people affected, more media attention and more alarmists demanding action or else.

 

There is no feasible solution but ti live with the annual cycle. Some years the flooding will be minor and others, extreme.

 

Bangkok won’t be 70m underwater in 80 years as the extremists will have you believe. It will be exactly the same as it is today with normal climatic frequency variations determining the flood depth.

 

The attraction to what caused the establishment of the Bangkok area is now the problem as the delta is no longer primarily used for the original purpose which was probably subsistence living, fishing, rice, and the river provided a means to transport goods to and from.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Reigntax

[BritManToo]

10 hours ago, moogradod said:

By the way ever thought of islands in the sea (inhabited, some are even seperate countries) and not only cities ?

None have ever sunk, in fact the ones predicted to be in danger have actually grown in size and population.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-08/why-are-hundreds-of-pacific-islands-getting-bigger/13038430

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-04/the-race-against-time-to-save-the-carteret-islanders/10066958

Edited September 3, 2022 by BritManToo

[BritManToo]

9 hours ago, Reigntax said:

I always ask people similar to yourself, so if you know everything and are so certain about it, then what is the best temperature. 
what we have today?

2 degrees cooler?

2 degrees warmer?

The correct answer is 2 degrees warmer.

There are bigger land areas in Siberia and Alaska which will become more productive if it's warmer and has more C02. Historically life was always easier in warmer periods.

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The correct answer is 2 degrees warmer.

There are bigger land areas in Siberia and Alaska which will become more productive if it's warmer and has more C02. Historically life was always easier in warmer periods.

Siberia has huge amounts of melting methane which is going to cause environmental disaster. Tropical areas will become unlivable.

Edited September 3, 2022 by ozimoron

[BritManToo]

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Siberia has huge amounts of melting methane which is going to cause environmental disaster. Tropical areas will become unlivable.

Only if

1. you believe methane in the atmosphere is harmful.

2. you believe 2 degrees warmer will make any populated place uninhabitable.

 

I don't believe either is true.

[ozimoron]

Just now, BritManToo said:

Only if

1. you believe methane in the atmosphere is harmful.

2. you believe 2 degrees warmer will make any populated place uninhabitable.

 

I don't believe either is true.

You may not but you don't have facts or science on your side as evidenced by the lack of links you provide to support your arguments.

 

Methane is also a powerful greenhouse gas. Over a 20-year period, it is 80 times more potent at warming than carbon dioxide.

Methane has accounted for roughly 30 per cent of global warming since pre-industrial times and is proliferating faster than at any other time since record keeping began in the 1980s.

 

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emissions-are-driving-climate-change-heres-how-reduce-them

[BritManToo]

On 9/4/2022 at 7:06 AM, ozimoron said:

You may not but you don't have facts or science on your side as evidenced by the lack of links you provide to support your arguments.

 

Methane is also a powerful greenhouse gas. Over a 20-year period, it is 80 times more potent at warming than carbon dioxide.

Methane has accounted for roughly 30 per cent of global warming since pre-industrial times and is proliferating faster than at any other time since record keeping began in the 1980s.

 

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emissions-are-driving-climate-change-heres-how-reduce-them

How many failed climate alarmist predictions must NASA, the UN and their hired goons make before you stop believing them?

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by onthedarkside
unsourced and unsubstantiated claim removed

[ozimoron]

On 9/4/2022 at 7:16 AM, BritManToo said:

How many failed climate alarmist predictions must NASA, the UN and their hired goons make before you stop believing them?

 

No peer reviewed climate change predictions have ever been wrong.

 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

 

Scientists have gotten predictions of global warming right since the 1970s

 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/12/4/20991315/climate-change-prediction-models-accurate

[Reigntax]

On 9/4/2022 at 6:38 AM, BritManToo said:

The correct answer is 2 degrees warmer.

There are bigger land areas in Siberia and Alaska which will become more productive if it's warmer and has more C02. Historically life was always easier in warmer periods.

And this is the issue.

temperature increase will be beneficial for areas outside the tropics but possibly not those within.

 

Temperature rise is also not linear, nor proportional and what optimal temperature averaged out across the whole earth is unknown.

so the experts are recommending actions based on achieving an unknown temperature value based on reducing certain concentrations of whatever the culprit is this year.

 

Remember the Ozone fanatics from 20 years ago. It’s never mentioned now.

it’s now cO2 which makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere and let’s face it, along with oxygen is a basic necessity to sustain most plant and human growth.

 

As I said before, the science and debate of climate variation does not exist while climate experts refer to any opposing views as “ deniers” and use the “99% of all scientists believe.. “ excuse because they don’t like their “theories” open to peer review.

 

Which is strange in itself because peer review, questioning and the cumulative input of intelligence is more likely to be accurate.

 

Unless, like a person with the intelligence of Einstein, where again 99% of “scientists “ rejected some of his theories, the 99% are guessing well outside their ability.

Worse still, they want to reduce you quality of life land use you money to fund their pet projects based on limited information knowledge and a personal agenda.

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by onthedarkside
off topic diversion comments removed

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

And this is the issue.

temperature increase will be beneficial for areas outside the tropics but possibly not those within.

 

Temperature rise is also not linear, nor proportional and what optimal temperature averaged out across the whole earth is unknown.

so the experts are recommending actions based on achieving an unknown temperature value based on reducing certain concentrations of whatever the culprit is this year.

 

Remember the Ozone fanatics from 20 years ago. It’s never mentioned now.

it’s now cO2 which makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere and let’s face it, along with oxygen is a basic necessity to sustain most plant and human growth.

 

As I said before, the science and debate of climate variation does not exist while climate experts refer to any opposing views as “ deniers” and use the “99% of all scientists believe.. “ excuse because they don’t like their “theories” open to peer review.

 

Which is strange in itself because peer review, questioning and the cumulative input of intelligence is more likely to be accurate.

 

Unless, like a person with the intelligence of Einstein, where again 99% of “scientists “ rejected some of his theories, the 99% are guessing well outside their ability.

Ozone never mentioned now or fact free opinion?

 

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/annual_data.html

[Reigntax]

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

No peer reviewed climate change predictions have ever been wrong.

No peer reviews have ever been done nor allowed unless you consider review by persons with the same agenda.

[BritManToo]

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Scientists have gotten predictions of global warming right since the 1970s

Odd that, because in the 1970s those same climate scientists were predicting an approaching ice age.

Then we had 'peak oil' ....... didn't happen.

Then ozone holes over the poles ........ went away on their own.

And NY being underwater by now ....... it isn't.

 

Selective memory?

Or deliberate dishonesty?

Edited September 4, 2022 by BritManToo

[ozimoron]

Just now, Reigntax said:

No peer reviews have ever been done nor allowed unless you consider review by persons with the same agenda.

Same agenda? You mean scientists who agree with the findings are wrong because they agree? LOL

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Odd that, because in the 1970s those same climate scientists were predicting an approaching ice age.

 

Selective memory?

Or deliberate dishonesty?

Link?

 

To be clear, almost all the models chosen are no longer in use, having been superseded by more sophisticated models since. Some of the earlier ones, especially those from the 1970s and early ’80s, are fairly crude energy-in, energy-out models, with a single variable for forcing (CO2) and a crude measure of climate sensitivity (the amount temperature rises per additional ton of CO2). It wasn’t until the late ’80s that James Hansen and other scientists developed multivariable general-circulation models.

It turns out that even those crude early models were fairly accurate, which is remarkable given the sophistication of the science and the available computing power. None of the models the authors analyzed got it badly wrong.

Edited September 4, 2022 by ozimoron

[OneMoreFarang]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Prediction of the future is based on models. They are only as good as the input data. When peak oil was talked about in the 70's, no-one knew the US was sitting on a bonanza of shale oil, or that Australia would become one of the world's biggest gas producers.

 

Focus on what is happening NOW, verified by measurement. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at unprecedented rates. Australia has had record interior heat cells over the past decade. Greenland has lost a significant amount of its ice cover. Iceland lost 7% of its glaciers in the last two decades. You think those trends are going to magically reverse?

Even if what you write would continue for the next hundred years, does that mean Bangkok would be under sea-level? How about the many millions of other things which will happen at the same time? And how about the advances in technologies?

There is enough work for us to do to make all our lives better now and in the next years. Let's concentrate on reality now and not far away future predictions.

[Reigntax]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Ozone never mentioned now or fact free opinion?

 

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/annual_data.html

As I said, never mentioned. Different from some continued collection of data.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Reigntax said:

As I said, never mentioned. Different from some continued collection of data.

On what planet is a scientific article "never mentioned"?

[Reigntax]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Same agenda? You mean scientists who agree with the findings are wrong because they agree? LOL

No. I mean peer reviews but “scientists” with the same agenda are useless.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Reigntax said:

No. I mean peer reviews but “scientists” with the same agenda are useless.

"Agenda" is just a meaningless label used in order to escape actual good faith debate.

[BritManToo]

On 9/4/2022 at 7:49 AM, ozimoron said:

"Agenda" is just a meaningless label used in order to escape actual good faith debate.

 

Your science is settled, but always wrong.

Which seems more like religion than science to me.

[ozimoron]

On 9/4/2022 at 7:50 AM, BritManToo said:

 

 Anyone who fails to provide links to support their argument is also failing to debate in good faith.

[Reigntax]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

On what planet is a scientific article "never mentioned"?

That information is collected in sone obscure place is completely different to the daily alarmists predictions we were bombarded with 20 years ago.

 

if the basis of spending trillions of dollars to achieve a result based on a theory why don’t you spell out the exact temperature that is optimal for the continued existence.

 

Who spends money without trying to achieve a definitive and known result?

Is it the current average temperature?

warmer or cooler?

 Surely the 99% of experts can accurately define the target?

 

 

 

 

[Reigntax]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

"Agenda" is just a meaningless label used in order to escape actual good faith debate.

No. Agenda is a term where a predetermined result is intended by ignoring opposing views and only listening to the likeminded.

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Reigntax

[Bkk Brian]

On 9/4/2022 at 7:16 AM, BritManToo said:

How many failed climate alarmist predictions must NASA, the UN and their hired goons make before you stop believing them?

 

Not really

 

Impossible to make specific and precise predictions but......................................

 

How climate models got so accurate they earned a Nobel Prize

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-climate-models-got-so-accurate-they-earned-a-nobel-prize

 

Climate predictions have mostly come true

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-predictions-have-mostly-come-true-jz7x8g2pc

 

20 years on, climate change projections have come true

https://theconversation.com/20-years-on-climate-change-projections-have-come-true-11245

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

That information is collected in sone obscure place is completely different to the daily alarmists predictions we were bombarded with 20 years ago.

 

if the basis of spending trillions of dollars to achieve a result based on a theory why don’t you spell out the exact temperature that is optimal for the continued existence.

 

Who spends money without trying to achieve a definitive and known result?

Is it the current average temperature?

warmer or cooler?

 Surely the 99% of experts can accurately define the target?

Yes, the optimal target is ZERO. The target we have to live with is much higher than that and anyone arguing that scientists should be able to pin the tipping point to an exact number is disingenuous.

[Reigntax]

On 9/4/2022 at 7:50 AM, BritManToo said:

 

Your science is settled, but always wrong.

Which seems more like religion than science to me.

Let’s not get started on religion.

the biggest brainwashing and agenda in history to control the actions of the masses.