New climate study raises alarm for Asian Megacities

[KhunLA]

48 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Personally driving an EV will do nothing much more than give you a warm, fuzzy feeling. What wiill benefit the planet most is to vote for leaders who will not pocket the fossil fuel bribes and deny there's a problem. 

Keep telling yourself that.

 

When I'm on the E-MB, behind fossil fuel burners ... I nose & eyes are telling me, I'm helping solve the problem, instead of being the problem.

 

If waiting for others, politician to lead the way ...

... nuff said

 

Mandates & cash incentives don't seem to be enough for some.  There are no reasons, just excuse with hypocrites.

Edited March 11, 2023 by KhunLA

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Keep telling yourself that.

 

When I'm on the E-MB, behind fossil fuel burners ... I nose & eyes are telling me, I'm helping solve the problem, instead of being the problem.

 

If waiting for others, politician to lead the way ...

... nuff said

 

Mandates & cash incentives don't seem to be enough for some.  There are no reasons, just excuse with hypocrites.

Most people can't afford an EV because politicians won't subsidise them. It all comes down to politicians.

[KhunLA]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Most people can't afford an EV because politicians won't subsidise them. It all comes down to politicians.

If they can afford a new ICE, they can afford an EV.  Especially if they go top end of entry level.  Here that just about matches the MG EP @ ฿771k, and that's a lot of car for money.

 

Neta V @ ฿549k and basically matches every entry level car here except Celerio or March, low end 3cyl types and considering what they offer, another 100k is well worth the investment, for low cost operation & maintenance.  Long run, hard to beat the cost of owning an EV.

[ozimoron]

Just now, KhunLA said:

If they can afford a new ICE, they can afford an EV.  Especially if they go top end of entry level.  Here that just about matches the MG EP @ ฿771k, and that's a lot of car for money.

 

Neta V @ ฿549k and basically matches every entry level car here except Celerio or March, low end 3cyl types and considering what they offer, another 100k is well worth the investment, for low cost operation & maintenance.  Long run, hard to beat the cost of owning an EV.

Just another 100K huh? When comparing mid size cars which most families need, EV's are clearly more expensive. 

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Just another 100K huh? When comparing mid size cars which most families need, EV's are clearly more expensive. 

If they are buying mid size cars, then they can definitely afford an EV.  Our MG ZS was ฿949k SUV/crossover and more than enough room for any family.

 

Sounds like more excuses me.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You claim that the planet is getting greener. Are all areas of the planet getting greener? Are no areas of the planet getting less green? Applying your logic to this question, unless the planet is gettering greener everywhere, your claim is invalid. 

Don't be silly! If you chop down forests to mine Lithium for car batteries, or for timber to burn because you are lacking coal resources, or to get access to the forest to build windmills, or build solar farms on rich grasslands, or build new roads and housing estates, then obviously those areas are becoming less green.

 

The satellite imagery show that the total amount of greening of the land has increased by an area equivalent to the USA, despite the numerous areas where greening has been reduced due to human activity.

 

Crikey! Got it?

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

If they are buying mid size cars, then they can definitely afford an EV.  Our MG ZS was ฿949k SUV/crossover and more than enough room for any family.

 

Sounds like more excuses me.

I paid 150,000bht for my s/h diesel pickup, been working for 12 years with minimal repairs.

What EV do you suggest I buy with my budget?

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I paid 150,000bht for my s/h diesel pickup, been working for 12 years with minimal repairs.

What EV do you suggest I buy with my budget?

 

[ozimoron]

48 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Don't be silly! If you chop down forests to mine Lithium for car batteries, or for timber to burn because you are lacking coal resources, or to get access to the forest to build windmills, or build solar farms on rich grasslands, or build new roads and housing estates, then obviously those areas are becoming less green.

 

The satellite imagery show that the total amount of greening of the land has increased by an area equivalent to the USA, despite the numerous areas where greening has been reduced due to human activity.

 

Crikey! Got it?

Batteries won't be lithium soon.

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Personally driving an EV will do nothing much more than give you a warm, fuzzy feeling.

I agree, believing the proliferation if EVs will significantly reduce climate change is idiocy. 

 

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

What wiill benefit the planet most is to vote for leaders who will not pocket the fossil fuel bribes and deny there's a problem. 

Would you please provide support for your claims that:

1. Leaders are pocketing fossil fuel bribes. 

2. Leaders are denying there is a problem.

3. Most US companies pay no taxes. 

 

Thanks! 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Yes, inevitably cold climates get greener as they become warmer.  Simple logic escapes climate change deniers. 

It is the hottest, driest areas getting greener, not the cold areas.

 

Plants generally need CO₂ to grow.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It is the hottest, driest areas getting greener, not the cold areas.

 

Plants generally need CO₂ to grow.

What's also significant is that elevated CO2 levels allow plants to grow much better in drier areas. That's because increases in CO2 levels reduce the size of the leaf spores which allow evaporation. With smaller spores (or stomata) the plants lose less water from evaporation and therefore need less water to grow. 

 

Whilst a doubling of atmospheric CO2, from say 300 to 600 ppm, or 600 ppm to 1200 ppm, causes approximately a 35% increase in plant growth under normal water conditions, the increase in plant growth under water-stressed conditions results in a 65% increase in plant growth.

 

This is no doubt at least part of the reason why the southern part of the Sahara Desert, known as the Sahel, has been greening in recent decades.

 

Here's an article that provides details.
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf

 

"In spite of the gloomy predictions of even more frequent and severe droughts and famines caused by global warming, vegetation in the Sahel has significantly increased in the last three decades."

 

"Climate scientists do not agree how the future climate of the Sahara and the Sahel will look like. Some climate models simulate a decrease in rainfall; others – for example Haarsma et al mentioned above – predict an increase in rainfall. According to Professor Claussen, North Africa is the area of greatest disagreement among climate scientists. Claussen explains that forecasting how global warming will affect the Sahel is complicated by the region’s vast size and the unpredictable influence of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains. Claussen has considered the likelihood of a greening of the Sahara due to global warming and concluded that an expansion of vegetation into today’s Sahara is possible as a consequence of CO2 emissions." 
 

[ozimoron]

20 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I agree, believing the proliferation if EVs will significantly reduce climate change is idiocy. 

 

Would you please provide support for your claims that:

1. Leaders are pocketing fossil fuel bribes. 

Fossil fuel millionaires collectively pumped more than $100m into Republican presidential contenders’ efforts last year – in an unprecedented investment by the oil and gas industry in the party’s future.

About one in three dollars donated to Republican hopefuls from mega-rich individuals came from people who owe their fortunes to fossil fuels – and who stand to lose the most in the fight against climate change.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/oil-and-gas-industry-has-pumped-millions-into-republican-campaigns

 

Led by the oil and gas industry, this sector regularly pumps the vast majority of its campaign contributions into Republican coffers. Even as other traditionally GOP-inclined industries have shifted somewhat to the left, this sector has remained rock-solid red.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01

 

20 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

2. Leaders are denying there is a problem.

Amid internal calls for climate action, a study finds that Republicans are the only climate-denying conservative party in the world

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/05/the-republican-party-stands-alone-in-climate-denial

 

 

20 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

3. Most US companies pay no taxes. 

Perhaps I should have said most of the LARGEST US companies don't pay income tax. But I think my point is still made.

 

Anyway, here are some links as requested to prove my point. 

 

The current United States tax code allows some of the biggest company names in the country to not pay any federal corporate income tax.

In fact, at least 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no federal corporate income taxes on their 2020 profits, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The companies include names like Whirlpool, FedEx, Nike, HP and Salesforce.

 

The 55 corporations cited by ITEP would have paid a collective total of $8.5 billion. Instead, they received $3.5 billion in tax rebates, collectively draining $12 billion from the U.S. government, according to the institute. The figures don’t include corporations that paid only some but not all of these taxes.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/14/how-companies-like-amazon-nike-and-fedex-avoid-paying-federal-taxes-.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/business/economy/zero-corporate-tax.html

 

https://www.axios.com/2022/04/26/these-companies-paid-little-to-no-taxes-last-year

 

20 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Thanks! 

You're welcome. By the way, would any of this evidence persuade you to accept that your challenge was not supported by facts and that my claims were true?

Edited March 12, 2023 by metisdead
After pasting a reply format the text you have pasted. An easy way to do this is to click the "Paste as plain text instead" option at the bottom of the reply box.

[bignok]

They can't even forecast weather accurately 5 days ahead. These "might be" things in 80 years are pure nonsense.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, bignok said:

They can't even forecast weather accurately 5 days ahead. These "might be" things in 80 years are pure nonsense.

That's like saying if they can't make London trains run on time then they can't predict climate change. 

[bignok]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That's like saying if they can't make London trains run on time then they can't predict climate change. 

They can't. If you can't even swim 50m then you can't swim 80 miles. These futuristic models are pure nonsense.

Edited March 11, 2023 by bignok

[ozimoron]

20 minutes ago, bignok said:

They can't. If you can't even swim 50m then you can't swim 80 miles. These futuristic models are pure nonsense.

 I accept that they aren't precise but they are correct. 

[placeholder]

18 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Don't be silly! If you chop down forests to mine Lithium for car batteries, or for timber to burn because you are lacking coal resources, or to get access to the forest to build windmills, or build solar farms on rich grasslands, or build new roads and housing estates, then obviously those areas are becoming less green.

 

The satellite imagery show that the total amount of greening of the land has increased by an area equivalent to the USA, despite the numerous areas where greening has been reduced due to human activity.

 

Crikey! Got it?

I get it. When satellite data confirms about greening your beliefs it's valid. When satellite data about global warming contradicts your beliefs, it doesn't count.

As for your comments about renewables effect on the environment...you got any hard numbers to show what percentage of destruction is due to renewables compared to other factors? Or are you just going to continue to rant?

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, bignok said:

They can't. If you can't even swim 50m then you can't swim 80 miles. These futuristic models are pure nonsense.

I'm sure you will have no trouble providing evidence to explain why, since the mid 70's the basic models have been so accurate in predicting global warming. I await your information with interest.

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, bignok said:

They can't even forecast weather accurately 5 days ahead. These "might be" things in 80 years are pure nonsense.

Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

What's also significant is that elevated CO2 levels allow plants to grow much better in drier areas. That's because increases in CO2 levels reduce the size of the leaf spores which allow evaporation. With smaller spores (or stomata) the plants lose less water from evaporation and therefore need less water to grow. 

 

Whilst a doubling of atmospheric CO2, from say 300 to 600 ppm, or 600 ppm to 1200 ppm, causes approximately a 35% increase in plant growth under normal water conditions, the increase in plant growth under water-stressed conditions results in a 65% increase in plant growth.

 

This is no doubt at least part of the reason why the southern part of the Sahara Desert, known as the Sahel, has been greening in recent decades.

 

Here's an article that provides details.
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf

 

"In spite of the gloomy predictions of even more frequent and severe droughts and famines caused by global warming, vegetation in the Sahel has significantly increased in the last three decades."

 

"Climate scientists do not agree how the future climate of the Sahara and the Sahel will look like. Some climate models simulate a decrease in rainfall; others – for example Haarsma et al mentioned above – predict an increase in rainfall. According to Professor Claussen, North Africa is the area of greatest disagreement among climate scientists. Claussen explains that forecasting how global warming will affect the Sahel is complicated by the region’s vast size and the unpredictable influence of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains. Claussen has considered the likelihood of a greening of the Sahara due to global warming and concluded that an expansion of vegetation into today’s Sahara is possible as a consequence of CO2 emissions." 
 

And again, you choose to believe that greening is occurring based on scientific data but you deny the validity of the scientific data that supports the fact of sustained global warming and the harms it causes.

Edited March 12, 2023 by placeholder

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

And again, you choose to believe that greening is occurring based on scientific data but you deny the validity of the scientific data that supports the fact of sustained global warming and the harms it causes.

You seem to be conflating data with projections. 

 

We have much more complete and accurate data from the financial sector, yet we have no model that will accurately predict it. 

 

With climate change, we have less data and many more variables, yet we're supposed to be absolutely certain the models are accurate. 

 

 

I do not doubt that the Earth is warming, nor do I doubt that human activity has an impact on that, but it the problem is CO₂, why are we shutting down nuclear and hydro? 

 

Why are we compelling people to burn wood and dung when they could be burning gas? 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

You seem to be conflating data with projections. 

 

We have much more complete and accurate data from the financial sector, yet we have no model that will accurately predict it. 

 

With climate change, we have less data and many more variables, yet we're supposed to be absolutely certain the models are accurate. 

 

 

I do not doubt that the Earth is warming, nor do I doubt that human activity has an impact on that, but it the problem is CO₂, why are we shutting down nuclear and hydro? 

 

Why are we compelling people to burn wood and dung when they could be burning gas? 

 

 

 

At this point we have over 40 years of proof subsequent to the Nobel prize winning Japanese scientist who first quantified the rate of increase of global average temperatures. The quickening of global warming correlates with the increased percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Please share with us any evidence of a comparable rate of global warming that occurred over the past hundred thousand years.

 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You seem to be conflating data with projections. 

 

We have much more complete and accurate data from the financial sector, yet we have no model that will accurately predict it. 

 

With climate change, we have less data and many more variables, yet we're supposed to be absolutely certain the models are accurate. 

 

 

I do not doubt that the Earth is warming, nor do I doubt that human activity has an impact on that, but it the problem is CO₂, why are we shutting down nuclear and hydro? 

 

Why are we compelling people to burn wood and dung when they could be burning gas? 

If we are compelling people to burn wood and dung instead of gas ( I haven't seen evidence of that ) then it can't be at the behest of fossil fuel companies. No have I seen widespread examples of hydro being shut down but I wish they would because dams are exceptionally bad for the environment. Nuclear is being shut down because it's extremely dangerous and waste needs to be reliably stored for a millennia. 

 

The only viable alternatives we have at present are solar, wind, tidal and geothermal. 

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

At this point we have over 40 years of proof subsequent to the Nobel prize winning Japanese scientist who first quantified the rate of increase of global average temperatures. The quickening of global warming correlates with the increased percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Please share with us any evidence of a comparable rate of global warming that occurred over the past hundred thousand years.

 

We have over 200 years of data from the NYSE and still no solid model. 

 

 

 

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

At this point we have over 40 years of proof subsequent to the Nobel prize winning Japanese scientist who first quantified the rate of increase of global average temperatures. The quickening of global warming correlates with the increased percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Please share with us any evidence of a comparable rate of global warming that occurred over the past hundred thousand years.

 

I'm not sure I believe climate change is a bad thing.

Most of the world's land area is too far north to grow crops easily.

A warmer climate would mean more land becomes available to farmers.

And more CO2 would mean the crops will have higher yields.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I'm not sure I believe climate change is a bad thing.

Most of the world's land area is too far north to grow crops easily.

A warmer climate would mean more land becomes available to farmers.

And more CO2 would mean the crops will have higher yields.

Almost all climate scientists do believe it's bad. Climate change causes droughts and floods which reduce crop yields. Only in colder climates does it do what you say and then at the cost of the ecologies there. Your argument is extremely facile. 

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm not sure I believe climate change is a bad thing.

Most of the world's land area is too far north to grow crops easily.

A warmer climate would mean more land becomes available to farmers.

And more CO2 would mean the crops will have higher yields.

Its not quite that simple:

 

Climate Change Will Expand Agriculture’s Reach, Solving Some Problems and Creating New Ones

growing food there would put biodiversity and clean water at risk while releasing massive quantities of CO2.

https://civileats.com/2020/02/12/climate-change-will-expand-agricultures-reach-solving-some-problems-and-creating-new-ones/

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

I get it. When satellite data confirms about greening your beliefs it's valid. When satellite data about global warming contradicts your beliefs, it doesn't count.

 

My belief is in the effectiveness of the scientific method which must include experimentation which has to be replicable if the theory is correct, and falsifiable if the theory is wrong, so of course any interpretation of data which contradicts my belief (in the methodology of science) causes me to be skeptical.

 

The evidence that the Earth, overall, has been in a slight warming trend during the past 100-150 years is probably correct and I don't dispute that, although I am aware of the enormous difficulty of getting a continuous and accurate, average, temperature of the entire planet, including land, sea and atmosphere, over that 150 year period.

 

Since I'm relatively unbiased, unlike alarmists, I consider both the positive and negative aspects of the current warming trend. I haven't yet seen any reliable evidence that shows the claimed 1.1 C rise in average global temperature during a 150 year period is anything to worry about. If the temperature in my house were to rise by only 1.1 degrees C during the course of just one day, I wouldn't even notice it.
 

[ozimoron]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

My belief is in the effectiveness of the scientific method which must include experimentation which has to be replicable if the theory is correct, and falsifiable if the theory is wrong, so of course any interpretation of data which contradicts my belief (in the methodology of science) causes me to be skeptical.

 

The evidence that the Earth, overall, has been in a slight warming trend during the past 100-150 years is probably correct and I don't dispute that, although I am aware of the enormous difficulty of getting a continuous and accurate, average, temperature of the entire planet, including land, sea and atmosphere, over that 150 year period.

 

Since I'm relatively unbiased, unlike alarmists, I consider both the positive and negative aspects of the current warming trend. I haven't yet seen any reliable evidence that shows the claimed 1.1 C rise in average global temperature during a 150 year period is anything to worry about. If the temperature in my house were to rise by only 1.1 degrees C during the course of just one day, I wouldn't even notice it.
 

how do you replicate a climate crisis? What experimentation? There is only historical data which can be examined and it has been. The science is in, we are in an existential crisis. Don't act and we are doomed.