Heatwave and Climate Change Puts Pressure on Thailand

[digger70]

2 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Along with the majority of scientists

The Scientists say whatever the people who pay their research want them to say.

[sidneybear]

6 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

What? Far right is well defined. Mao has nothing to do with it.

Define it then. Tell me in your own words what you think it means.

[sidneybear]

8 minutes ago, digger70 said:

The scientist say whatever what the people who Pay there research what they want them to say.

People really are motivated by money. Scientists are people. The money back just one side of the debate. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Edited May 3 by sidneybear

[sidneybear]

4 hours ago, Roo Island said:

About the worst source for information you can find. Terrible.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reclaim-the-net-bias/

But the report on Wikipedia deleting a list of scientists who were questioning the warmist faith. It had screen shots and all. Media bias fact check boasts impartiality but since it's obviously disparaging of a right wing viewpoint, who do you think donates to it?

 

I recently did a bit of digging around on the purportedly impartial factcheck.org. Turns out its donors included the National Endowment for Democracy, a supposedly impartial NGO that's actually funded by the US state, of the Democrat persuasion.

 

If in doubt, follow the money trail. No single media outlet is impartial, so it's important to read all sides and draw conclusions. Scepticism is a healthy trait, and protects us from the evil of those who wish us harm. 

 

Edited May 3 by sidneybear

[connda]

13 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I just hope that everybody here is paying attention to:

 

INCREASING Water Vapor levels in the atmosphere due to Global Warming.

 

Water vapor is one of the stronger greenhouse gasses.

 

Therefore, it, by itself, might be thought of as a positive feedback loop.  The hotter the temperature, the more water vapor in the atmosphere, and the more water vapor, the hotter the atmosphere will become due to water vapor being a greenhouse gas.

 

Then, of course, higher Relative Humidity leads to heat stress when it becomes less easy to evaporate sweat from skin, causing overheating of the body.

 

Obviously, society must do more to adjust to a world of 2 degrees C above 1850 baseline.  When will we hit 2 degrees C?  Well, the rate of change, the intensity, is increasing.

 

Let's all choose the most dire scenario, the worst-case model, and then we can see that it might be just one decade before we hit 2 degrees C, when we all agreed to 1.5 degrees C.

 

We need to insulate our houses.

And, we need to plant trees like crazy.

And, we need to remove inefficient buildings.

 

Doing this, we can reduce the heat-island effect.

And, we might be able to live in a world of 2 degrees above, for a short period of time, until....

We hit 2.5 degrees above, and then...

We reach 3.0 degrees above, and so on.

 

Soon, fairly soon, where we live will no longer be inhabitable.

 

(It's not IF, but WHEN.)

 

 

 

Eat bugs, stay home and never drive again, and give GammaGlobulin half your income in carbon offsets (so he can buy and fly a private jet and buy some beachfront property next to Al Gore) and the Earth will be saved. 

[sidneybear]

15 minutes ago, connda said:

Eat bugs, stay home and never drive again, and give GammaGlobulin half your income in carbon offsets (so he can buy and fly a private jet and buy some beachfront property next to Al Gore) and the Earth will be saved. 

That's what the nihilistic warmist faith wants and demands of the rest of us. 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, sidneybear said:

That's a woke dictionary. It's obvious were the term denier originated, and the definition is incomplete. 

In that case, it looks like all the dictionaries I consulted, are also woke. More nonsense from you.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, sidneybear said:

Hypocrite isn't a slur. It merely describes one who doesn't live by his stated beliefs 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

This comment is just nonsensical. A hypocrite is a kind of liar. I'm not surprised that you think accusing someone of being a kind of liar isn't an insult. What makes it even less intelligent, which is a pretty hard thing to do, is that you characterized me as being a hypocrite on the basis of absolutely no evidence. What evidence is there in my comments that I am a hypocrite?

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, digger70 said:

The scientist say whatever what the people who Pay there research what they want them to say.

Wow. Not 100% coherent.

[Roo Island]

1 hour ago, sidneybear said:

But the report on Wikipedia deleting a list of scientists who were questioning the warmist faith. It had screen shots and all. Media bias fact check boasts impartiality but since it's obviously disparaging of a right wing viewpoint, who do you think donates to it?

 

I recently did a bit of digging around on the purportedly impartial factcheck.org. Turns out its donors included the National Endowment for Democracy, a supposedly impartial NGO that's actually funded by the US state, of the Democrat persuasion.

 

If in doubt, follow the money trail. No single media outlet is impartial, so it's important to read all sides and draw conclusions. Scepticism is a healthy trait, and protects us from the evil of those who wish us harm. 

 

Fake news

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, sidneybear said:

Links...

 

6 hours ago, sidneybear said:

Got any evidence to support this?

Here's some  evidence from 3 of the worlds leading financial analysis companies: Lazard, Ernst & Jung, and Mackenzie Woods. Got any evidence to rebut this?

https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

 

 

Solar LCOE now 29% lower than any fossil fuel option, says EY

A report from Ernst & Young (EY) shows that despite inflationary pressures, solar remains the cheapest source of new-build electricity. The global weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for PV is now 29% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-lower-than-any-fuel-fossil-option-says-ey/

 

According to Wood Mackenzie’s latest analysis of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for the Asia Pacific (APAC) region, the LCOE from renewables reached a historic low in 2023. This is significant because it marks a shift toward making renewables increasingly competitive with coal, a mainstay in APAC’s energy mix. The driving force behind this trend is the substantial reduction in capital costs for renewable energy projects.

https://electrek.co/2024/02/29/utility-solar-dethrones-coal-as-the-cheapest-power-source-in-asia/#:~:text=Renewable energy costs in Asia,according to a new study.

Edited May 3 by placeholder

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Eat bugs, stay home and never drive again, and give GammaGlobulin half your income in carbon offsets (so he can buy and fly a private jet and buy some beachfront property next to Al Gore) and the Earth will be saved. 

 

We need a better carbon tax system.

You are right!

 

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, sidneybear said:

I understand thermodynamics, and that energy can't be created or destroyed, but you're making the assumption that the earth is a closed system and that the sun progressively warms the oceans. What actually happens is that heat is radiated back into space. It's true that CO2 reduces that radiation, but CO2 is produced by more than just the burning of fossil fuels. Limestone rocks emit it, oceans emit it, decomposition emits it, volcanoes emit it, animals fart it, loss of forests doesn't absorb it, etcetera. If you look back through the  ages, there are times when CO2 was much higher than it is now - times when neither humans nor use if fossil fuels existed. The earth does its thing in very long  and shorter cycles. Blaming it all on humans and asking people to live in poverty to control the weather is, well, antihuman.

You are wrong in several aspects. We were not around during the Ordovician period, 485 million years ago. We only came into being about 700,000 years ago. We did not start influencing climate until the Industrial Revolution, which is only 200 years ago.

 

You think natural gas is clean fossil fuel? It comes out of the ground with up to 35% CO2 in it.

 

Limestone is calcium carbonate. It doesn't emit CO2 until humans heat it at 900 C to make lime, the heating achieved using fossil fuels.

 

While it is true animals fart CO2, they also fart methane, which is 100 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2.  Intensive animal husbandry started about the same time as the Industrial revolution

 

Pretending CO2 and climate change are cyclical is the classic argument used by denialists to divert away from the evidence that overwhelmingly indicates humans are responsible for current and coming climate changes.

 

Poverty is unavoidable. Conservative models indicate by 2050 water flows to the Mekong, Brahmaputra and Ganges rivers from the Himalayan plateau will be halved. About 2 billion people depend on that water supply.

 

You say you understand thermodynamics, your response says you don't. I won't waste my time any further.

 

 

Edited May 3 by Lacessit

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, sidneybear said:

I understand thermodynamics, and that energy can't be created or destroyed, but you're making the assumption that the earth is a closed system and that the sun progressively warms the oceans. What actually happens is that heat is radiated back into space. It's true that CO2 reduces that radiation, but CO2 is produced by more than just the burning of fossil fuels. Limestone rocks emit it, oceans emit it, decomposition emits it, volcanoes emit it, animals fart it, loss of forests doesn't absorb it, etcetera. If you look back through the  ages, there are times when CO2 was much higher than it is now - times when neither humans nor use if fossil fuels existed. The earth does its thing in very long  and shorter cycles. Blaming it all on humans and asking people to live in poverty to control the weather is, well, antihuman.

Unfortunately  your comments about the sources of CO2 are false. We know that they are false for 2 reasons. The main reason is Carbon 14. Carbon 14 is continually created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays striking carbon atoms. After about 14,000 years, virtually all that carbon 14 decays into Carbon 12. The entire rise in CO2 since the onset of the industrial revolution is is composed of CO2 that contains no C14 but only C12. That would be coming from ancient and sequestered stocks of Carbon like OIl, natural gas, and coal.  Similarly, volcanoes are a source of CO2 some if which is made up of Carbon 13, another isotope of Carbon, as well. There has been no rise in the gross production of CO2 that has a C13 component.

In other words, you've got nothing.

[sidneybear]

40 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Here's some  evidence from 3 of the worlds leading financial analysis companies: Lazard, Ernst & Jung, and Mackenzie Woods. Got any evidence to rebut this?

https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

 

 

Solar LCOE now 29% lower than any fossil fuel option, says EY

A report from Ernst & Young (EY) shows that despite inflationary pressures, solar remains the cheapest source of new-build electricity. The global weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for PV is now 29% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-lower-than-any-fuel-fossil-option-says-ey/

 

According to Wood Mackenzie’s latest analysis of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for the Asia Pacific (APAC) region, the LCOE from renewables reached a historic low in 2023. This is significant because it marks a shift toward making renewables increasingly competitive with coal, a mainstay in APAC’s energy mix. The driving force behind this trend is the substantial reduction in capital costs for renewable energy projects.

https://electrek.co/2024/02/29/utility-solar-dethrones-coal-as-the-cheapest-power-source-in-asia/#:~:text=Renewable energy costs in Asia,according to a new study.

It's fantastic that renewable are so cheap like you say, and all these windmills have saved personkind from nasty weather. You must feel very pleased with yourself. 

 

If all this green energy is so cheap, why, then, are consumer energy costs skyrocketing everwhere, and driving ordinary folk into energy poverty. Answer me that.

[tjintx]

55 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Here's some  evidence from 3 of the worlds leading financial analysis companies: Lazard, Ernst & Jung, and Mackenzie Woods. Got any evidence to rebut this?

https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

 

 

Solar LCOE now 29% lower than any fossil fuel option, says EY

A report from Ernst & Young (EY) shows that despite inflationary pressures, solar remains the cheapest source of new-build electricity. The global weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for PV is now 29% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-lower-than-any-fuel-fossil-option-says-ey/

 

According to Wood Mackenzie’s latest analysis of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for the Asia Pacific (APAC) region, the LCOE from renewables reached a historic low in 2023. This is significant because it marks a shift toward making renewables increasingly competitive with coal, a mainstay in APAC’s energy mix. The driving force behind this trend is the substantial reduction in capital costs for renewable energy projects.

https://electrek.co/2024/02/29/utility-solar-dethrones-coal-as-the-cheapest-power-source-in-asia/#:~:text=Renewable energy costs in Asia,according to a new study.

 

"Ernst & Jung"!!    Wow, third-rate bean counters merge with a third-rate shrink?  Also, a female goal keeper, it's Mackenzie Wood, without the s btw.  Wow, you sure know your sources!!!   I'm impressed plaiceholder..

Edited May 3 by tjintx

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

 

 

If all this green energy is so cheap, why, then, are consumer energy costs skyrocketing everwhere, and driving ordinary folk into energy poverty. Answer me that.

Rich people can afford renewable power sources and battery storage. The average person can't.

 

Fossil-fueled power generators have a shrinking market. If they leave their prices as is, their profitability decreases. 65% of electricity worldwide is still generated from fossil fuel.

 

Your grasp of business economics is no better than your grasp of science.

[Robert Paulson]

Why does nobody say “it’s not the heat it’s the damn humidity” in Thailand? 

[sidneybear]

5 minutes ago, tjintx said:

 

"Ernst & Jung"!!    Wow, third-rate bean counters merge with a third-rate shrink?  Also, a female goal keeper, it's Mackenzie Wood, without the s btw.  Wow, you sure know your sources!!!   I'm impressed plaiceholder..

Good observation. These big consulting houses sell their souls for cash. Look at how Arthur Anderson was in bed with Enron, headed up by 'Fred the Shred'. The rest is history. 

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

It's fantastic that renewable are so cheap like you say, and all these windmills have saved personkind from nasty weather. You must feel very pleased with yourself. 

 

If all this green energy is so cheap, why, then, are consumer energy costs skyrocketing everwhere, and driving ordinary folk into energy poverty. Answer me that.

Links? Got some evidence to support that?

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, tjintx said:

 

"Ernst & Jung"!!    Wow, third-rate bean counters merge with a third-rate shrink?  Also, a female goal keeper, it's Mackenzie Wood, without the s btw.  Wow, you sure know your sources!!!   I'm impressed plaiceholder..

Addled much? Gotta give you credit for packing so much nonsense into so few words

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, sidneybear said:

So contribute something to the discussion then. Show us how smart you are.

 

Like just posting anything next to you? You don't even have to be that smart to see how dumb denying theories are

Edited May 3 by kwilco

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, digger70 said:

The scientist say whatever what the people who Pay there research what they want them to say.

seriously - how dumb can you be? So how do you get your scientific information?

[Robert Paulson]

I still don’t think it’s that hot.

 

If I had to use women to describe the scale, current temperatures are maybe a Reese Witherspoon. But everyone is acting like it’s currently Margot Robbie with Sydney Sweeney boobs 

[placeholder]

29 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

Good observation. These big consulting houses sell their souls for cash. Look at how Arthur Anderson was in bed with Enron, headed up by 'Fred the Shred'. The rest is history. 

Right., It's a case of Big Green showering them with cash while the bullied and impoverished teensy fossil fuel interests, unable to compete for the favor of the major financial institutions, cower helplessly. So sad.

[placeholder]

50 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

It's fantastic that renewable are so cheap like you say, and all these windmills have saved personkind from nasty weather. You must feel very pleased with yourself. 

 

If all this green energy is so cheap, why, then, are consumer energy costs skyrocketing everwhere, and driving ordinary folk into energy poverty. Answer me that.

While you are busily engaged with your research, I though I might share this with you.

 

 

[placeholder]

55 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

It's fantastic that renewable are so cheap like you say, and all these windmills have saved personkind from nasty weather. You must feel very pleased with yourself. 

 

If all this green energy is so cheap, why, then, are consumer energy costs skyrocketing everwhere, and driving ordinary folk into energy poverty. Answer me that.

And here's something else for you to contemplate whilst you are doing your research:

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal

[placeholder]

59 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

It's fantastic that renewable are so cheap like you say, and all these windmills have saved personkind from nasty weather. You must feel very pleased with yourself. 

 

If all this green energy is so cheap, why, then, are consumer energy costs skyrocketing everwhere, and driving ordinary folk into energy poverty. Answer me that.

There's also this for you to contemplate:

Cost overruns and delays risk nuclear’s place in energy transition

https://archive.ph/4Aoky

[kiwikeith]

21 hours ago, flyingtlger said:

 

 

Hell hath come upon us.....

Maybe it's all the water irrigating dope crops that's causing the water shortage 

[hotchilli]

14 hours ago, digger70 said:

No one can Master climate change.

It's a Natural Phenomenon that happens every few/many thousands of  years.

Well I never....