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

[Reigntax]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

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.

Zero what?

Change from now?

if so, are you saying the optimal temperature is that currently?

So are you saying 1 deg temperature rise or fall will be detrimental?

 

How was your baseline optimal temperature established ?

Can we just accept you will never quantify any exact optimal conditions because to do so is impossible without guessing?

Edited September 4, 2022 by Reigntax

[Reigntax]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

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.

No. Any person who is unable to define exactly what they are trying to achieve by spending countless amounts of other peoples money is not a scientist, they are a political activists with an agenda on a predetermined position.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Reigntax

[Bkk Brian]

10 hours ago, Reigntax said:

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.

 

But you are certainly correct in the spelling. I wouldn’t dare argue with your expertise on a topic so close to home.

 

There has never been man made climate change like this before:

 

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

[Reigntax]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

There has never been man made climate change like this before:

 

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

Agreed. There has never been advancements in quality of life over the same period before also.

The question really is whether the warming is good for society, what is the maximum target before it becomes detrimental and about obtaining data on as many of the variables that contribute cumulatively so that accurate predictions and results can be determined.

 

Currently that is not the case. It’s become a topic for activism rather than based on science and popular to express views by those with little knowledge but a preference to support major populist agendas while ignoring the issues where they can contribute like getting their own houses in order before solving the problems of the world 

[BE88]

For Bangkok I do not see any big problem for its future only a transformation into a lagoon city of the semi-submerged type where cars and taxis including buses will turn into river boats with the loss of the first floor for housing, the rest of the buildings will bring with some precautions continue to work; the walks in Lumpini Park will turn into morning swims in a large swimming pool and everything is in order.

 

And the famous Thai rule, it doesn't matter, continue for centuries and centuries

[Reigntax]

29 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

There has never been man made climate change like this before:

 

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

The graph represents total climate change., both natural and man made.  None can determine what percentages were contributed by each or whether there are other contributing factors.

 

What is interesting in that graph is the downturn about the 1970’s and I assume this is the same period where science predicted global cooling.

 I have never heard anyone try to explain this but I do remember at the time the consensus was that it was caused by pollution blocking out the sunlight or similar.

 

And if for arguments sake, this had continued, what would the science community recommended to stop climate cooling? More burning of fossil fuels?

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Reigntax

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Reigntax said:

Agreed. There has never been advancements in quality of life over the same period before also.

The question really is whether the warming is good for society, what is the maximum target before it becomes detrimental and about obtaining data on as many of the variables that contribute cumulatively so that accurate predictions and results can be determined.

 

Currently that is not the case. It’s become a topic for activism rather than based on science and popular to express views by those with little knowledge but a preference to support major populist agendas while ignoring the issues where they can contribute like getting their own houses in order before solving the problems of the world 

Getting your own house in order first before solving world problems? 

 

The world is a very small place and the effects of climate change are everywhere.

 

Its impossible for science to predict the precise effects as its new territory and science can rely of mathematical models but also needs time for observation and evidence. However all the scientific evidence is already coming in with the detrimental effects that climate change is causing.

 

HEAT MAP SHOWS CLEAR TREND IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE

 

Sometimes it’s hard to get a clear grasp on just how much the climate has changed and where we sit now, compared to the climate of the past.

With the last nine years all appearing in the top ten hottest years ever recorded, we’ve put the last 143 years into context in this heatmap to show global temperature over time.

 

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/heat-map-clear-trend-global-temperature-change/

 

Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This increase happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

Science and direct evidence already tells us what happens to plant life when a greenhouse gets too hot.

[Bkk Brian]

deleted

Edited September 4, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[Reigntax]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Getting your own house in order first before solving world problems? 

 

The world is a very small place and the effects of climate change are everywhere.

 

Its impossible for science to predict the precise effects as its new territory and science can rely of mathematical models but also needs time for observation and evidence. However all the scientific evidence is already coming in with the detrimental effects that climate change is causing.

 

HEAT MAP SHOWS CLEAR TREND IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE

 

Sometimes it’s hard to get a clear grasp on just how much the climate has changed and where we sit now, compared to the climate of the past.

With the last nine years all appearing in the top ten hottest years ever recorded, we’ve put the last 143 years into context in this heatmap to show global temperature over time.

 

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/heat-map-clear-trend-global-temperature-change/

 

Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This increase happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

Science and direct evidence already tells us what happens to plant life when a greenhouse gets too hot.

Ok. So what temperature is too hot?

I thought the word green house was based on a structure to deliberatly increase the temperature and humidity where growth became more abundant?

 

Or am I mistaken and greenhouses are used to retard growth?

Edited September 4, 2022 by Reigntax

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

Ok. So what temperature is too hot?

I thought the word green house was based on a structure to deliberatly increase the temperature and humidity where growth became more abundant?

 

Or am I mistaken and greenhouses are used to retard growth?

Your clinging onto your question repeatedly through this thread on what temperature is too hot as if this gives validity to your argument and yet the answer is out there already.

 

Climate Crisis: What Does a 2 Degrees Celsius Rise in Global Temperature Mean?

https://www.thequint.com/climate-change/climate-emergency-what-will-a-2-degrees-celsius-rise-in-global-temperature-mean

[Reigntax]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Your clinging onto your question repeatedly through this thread on what temperature is too hot as if this gives validity to your argument and yet the answer is out there already.

 

Climate Crisis: What Does a 2 Degrees Celsius Rise in Global Temperature Mean?

https://www.thequint.com/climate-change/climate-emergency-what-will-a-2-degrees-celsius-rise-in-global-temperature-mean

Like most articles in the topic it only lists predicted detrimental affects. No mention of anything positive like current low temperature areas will benefit from increased temperature and productivity.

 Nowhere are the benefits and the impacts ever argued or stated.

I fail to see how an increase in temperature affecting a land mass below or above 30 deg latitude would be anything but positive.

 

Does this provide an overall advantage. I don’t know but nobody else seems to consider this either

Edited September 4, 2022 by Reigntax

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

Like most articles in the topic it only lists detrimental affects. No mention of anything positive like current low temperature areas will benefit from increased temperature and productivity.

 Nowhere are the benefits and never active impacts argued or stated.

I fail to see how an increase in temperature affecting a land mass below or above 30 deg latitude would be anything but positive.

 

Does is provide an overall advantage. I don’t know but nobody else seems to consider this either

Do you have any data to back up your opinions?

[Reigntax]

15 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Do you have any data to back up your opinions?

You need data to prove that a temperature increase in cold areas will result in higher productivity?

 

How about just the word or structure or purpose of “Greenhouse.”

 

OK let’s assume all predictions are correct. Can you define what percentage of climate change is natural and what percentage is man made.

 

After all, we can only make changes to the man made portion as the remainder naturally occurs and will continue to do so. Or not?

 

And if so at what point or temperature do the Laws of Thermodynamics, as a previous poster stated, provide an environment of/in equilibrium?

Edited September 4, 2022 by Reigntax

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Reigntax said:

You need data to prove that a temperature increase in cold areas will result in higher productivity?

 

How about just the word or structure “Greenhouse.”

 

OK let’s assume all predictions are correct. Can you define what percentage of climate change is natural and what percentage is man made.

 

After all, we can only make changes to the man made portion as the remainder naturally occurs and will continue to do so. Or not?

 

And if so at what point or temperature do the Laws of Thermodynamics, as a previous poster stated, provide an environment of/in equilibrium?

You need science to back up your opinions particularly when you have been the one asking for it. Seeing as you can't then that leaves you with personal speculation which does not convince me in the slightest

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

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?

The ozone holes over both poles did not go away on their own. They shrank and disappeared after 197 nations signed off on eliminating the production and use of chlorofluorocarbons ( CFC's ), which were proven ozone-depleting compounds. The 1987 Montreal Protocol, perhaps the only effective environmental treaty mankind has managed to develop.

 

 

[Reigntax]

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You need science to back up your opinions particularly when you have been the one asking for it. Seeing as you can't then that leaves you with personal speculation which does not convince me in the slightest

I’ve never asked to see data. I’ve asked anyone to tell me what the most desirable climate temperature is.

 

im also not trying to convince you of anything. Right from the beginning of this topic I’ve stated that insufficient information on all the variables related to climate change exist.

 

There are many unknowns but still “scientists” make predictions that are nothing more than guesses based on inaccurate modelling and insufficient data.

despite this, they want the world to spend trillions of dollars based on their guesses and cause detriment to the average persons quality of life.

 

I have never proclaimed nor denied climate change is occurring but I would also never expect others to contribute or follow any flawed modelling based on incomplete data.

 

The obligation is upon those begging for funds to prove their case and that it has been correctly analysed and proven beyond reasonable doubt and economically viable.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Reigntax

[Lacessit]

44 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Your clinging onto your question repeatedly through this thread on what temperature is too hot as if this gives validity to your argument and yet the answer is out there already.

 

Climate Crisis: What Does a 2 Degrees Celsius Rise in Global Temperature Mean?

https://www.thequint.com/climate-change/climate-emergency-what-will-a-2-degrees-celsius-rise-in-global-temperature-mean

Any meteorologist worth their salt will tell you the warmer the ocean surface temperature is, the more intense a hurricane/typhoon/cyclone will be.

 

It's a perfect example of the First Law of Thermodynamics in action.

[Bkk Brian]

 

2 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

There are many unknowns but still “scientists” make predictions that are nothing more than guesses based on inaccurate modelling and insufficient data.

I've already provided you with evidence that this is just not true

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Any meteorologist worth their salt will tell you the warmer the ocean surface temperature is, the more intense a hurricane/typhoon/cyclone will be.

 

It's a perfect example of the First Law of Thermodynamics in action.

Of course, its a simple concept:

 

Global warming is making air and sea temperatures rise, leading to more evaporation, warmer air can hold more moisture, making monsoon rainfall more intense and of course more storms

[Reigntax]

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Of course, its a simple concept:

 

Global warming is making air and sea temperatures rise, leading to more evaporation, warmer air can hold more moisture, making monsoon rainfall more intense and of course more storms

Warmer air holds less moisture but has higher enthalpy.

Have a look at a psychometric chart.

[micmichd]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Of course, its a simple concept:

 

Global warming is making air and sea temperatures rise, leading to more evaporation, warmer air can hold more moisture, making monsoon rainfall more intense and of course more storms

Agree with the diagnosis. Now, what about a solution? 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

Warmer air holds less moisture but has higher enthalpy.

Have a look at a psychometric chart.

The science linking climate change and more intense monsoons is quite simple, global warming is making air and sea temperatures rise, leading to more evaporation, warmer air can hold more moisture, making monsoon rainfall more intense.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62758811

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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.

I don't deny there will be advances in technology, even the smartphones we have were inconceivable 100 years ago. Whether those advances will be good enough, and how many will be stymied by political inertia, is a different question.

 

In Australia, the CSIRO has already established the technology for converting hydrogen generated by solar power into ammonia for transportation, and reconstituting the hydrogen at the point of delivery. Proven at pilot plant stage.

 

None of the politicians in Australia have the scientific background to realize we are sitting on a gold mine, all that is needed is the capital for mass production. They are all focused on how many staffing cutbacks they can make short of destroying CSIRO.

 

Same same but different with Bangkok, when the Dutch came knocking with solutions to Bangkok's flooding, Thai politicians did not want to know. Face.

[Reigntax]

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The science linking climate change and more intense monsoons is quite simple, global warming is making air and sea temperatures rise, leading to more evaporation, warmer air can hold more moisture, making monsoon rainfall more intense.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62758811

Ok. So during the previous 9 or so climate cycles in known earth history, from cooling to warming where mankind did not exist what caused these climate change variations?

 

Did monsoonal rains equal to or greater not exist ?

Did freak storms exist?

How were many of the current river gorges formed where today there are only small rivers with the occasional seasonal flood?

why have large rivers changed their geometry over thousands of years?

How did Noah know to build his ark?

Maybe the Climatologists of the day got together and predicted it?

 

 

[ozimoron]

29 minutes ago, micmichd said:

Agree with the diagnosis. Now, what about a solution? 

Stop burning fossil fuels and deforesting. All credible scientists are saying this is the solution and none are proposing any other solution.

[Bkk Brian]

On 9/4/2022 at 10:32 AM, Reigntax said:

Ok. So during the previous 9 or so climate cycles in known earth history, from cooling to warming where mankind did not exist what caused these climate change variations?

 

Did monsoonal rains equal to or greater not exist ?

Did freak storms exist?

How were many of the current river gorges formed where today there are only small rivers with the occasional seasonal flood?

why have large rivers changed their geometry over thousands of years?

How did Noah know to build his ark?

Maybe the Climatologists of the day got together and predicted it?

 

 

Your opinion of scientists says it all from a previous post of yours, perhaps you have the answers to your own questions, when you do let me know as I'm keen to discover how Noah knew when to built the ark...........lol

 

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.

 

[Reigntax]

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I don't deny there will be advances in technology, even the smartphones we have were inconceivable 100 years ago. Whether those advances will be good enough, and how many will be stymied by political inertia, is a different question.

 

In Australia, the CSIRO has already established the technology for converting hydrogen generated by solar power into ammonia for transportation, and reconstituting the hydrogen at the point of delivery. Proven at pilot plant stage.

 

None of the politicians in Australia have the scientific background to realize we are sitting on a gold mine, all that is needed is the capital for mass production. They are all focused on how many staffing cutbacks they can make short of destroying CSIRO.

 

Same same but different with Bangkok, when the Dutch came knocking with solutions to Bangkok's flooding, Thai politicians did not want to know. Face.

Yes technology will eventually solve most energy issues.

Nuclear will eventually form most base load requirements supplemented by alternatives such as hydro, wind, thermal and solar.

 

But this requires investment that is economically viable and sustainable unlike many of the current alternatives.

 

It’s Better to replace the cause rather than try to control or tax the result.

 

 

[Reigntax]

On 9/4/2022 at 10:39 AM, Bkk Brian said:

Your opinion of scientists says it all from a previous post of yours, perhaps you have the answers to your own idiotic questions, when you do let me know as I'm keen to discover how Noah built the ark

 

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.

Who can forget the most recent 99% of the scientific community cumulative response. “It is impossible that Covid didn’t start from a lab in Wuhan”.

I have a high opinion of scientists, unfortunately this is not the majority.

 

Scientists look at actual facts, not assumptions and based on all facts, make a conclusion.

 

if facts or knowledge are missing, they find them or search for years to find them.

 

They don’t say, “ I couldn’t be bothered, I’ll just make an assumption and shut down everyone who questions it”.

 

A competent confident Scientist will encourage peer review and questioning of his conclusions. The more the better and he certainly wouldn’t discourage a single argument.

 

How he built it? I’d first like to know how he knew?

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

[Bkk Brian]

On 9/4/2022 at 10:54 AM, Reigntax said:

I have a high opinion of scientists, unfortunately this is not the majority.

 

Scientists look at actual facts, not assumptions and based on all facts, make a conclusion.

 

if facts or knowledge are missing, they find them or search for years to find them.

 

They don’t say, “ I couldn’t be bothered, I’ll just make an assumption and shut down everyone who questions it”.

 

A competent confident Scientist will encourage peer review and questioning of his conclusions. The more the better and he certainly wouldn’t discourage a single argument.

 

How he built it? I’d first like to know how he knew?

Did you miss the links I provided to the facts on the climate predictions that the majority all got right? Also known as evidence based science?  Feel free to let me know what this agenda is of theirs that you claim they have and what are their pet projects?

[VocalNeal]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

There has never been man made climate change like this before:

There were also no accurate measuring instruments before: