Heatwave and Climate Change Puts Pressure on Thailand

[placeholder]

41 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

It's cooling off a bit in Thailand now. Haven't you noticed? Quite balmy now. Hot seasons are, well, hot, bit they end when it starts raining. 

 

Happens every year around this time. No need to get your knickers in a twist about trying to change the weather. 

Without offering evidence and explanation you have previously accused me of not understanding. And yet here is proof that you don't understand the difference between climate and weather.  I am happy to be able to offer this piece of assistance that should dispel your ignorance:

"Climate is the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area. Weather can change from hour-to-hour, day-to-day, month-to-month or even year-to-year. A region's weather patterns, usually tracked for at least 30 years, are considered its climate."

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/all-about-climate/

[placeholder]

57 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

ABC is an Australian mirror image of the BBC: A lefty outfit that is paid for by taxation and is supposed to be impartial. All it does is recite leftist nostrums like all this guff about changing the weather. People laugh at it.

The article in question was about published research. If you have any proof that the article contain falsehoods, please share that with the rest of us. In other words, put up or...

[sidneybear]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

The article in question was about published research. If you have any proof that the article contain falsehoods, please share that with the rest of us. In other words, put up or...

Since you're so fond of links, here is a list of 1,900 very clever and distinguished folks who think that the so-called "climate emergency" is a load of politicised codswallop... or are your links bigger than mine because yours feature academics who don’t live in the real world? 

 

https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/

 

Climate pseudoscience is just a way of lining people's pockets and keeping the peasants poor, cold and immobile. 

 

Of course, you'll counter with more links of your own, because you lack the faculties to do your own analysis and question what you post. 

 

Edited May 9 by sidneybear

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, sidneybear said:

Since you're so fond of links, here is a list of 1,900 very clever and distinguished folks who think that the so-called "climate emergency" is a load of politicised codswallop... or are your links bigger than mine because yours feature academics who don’t live in the real world? 

 

https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/

 

Climate pseudoscience is just a way of lining people's pockets and keeping the peasants poor, cold and immobile. 

 

Of course, you'll counter with more links of your own, because you lack the faculties to do your own analysis and question what you post. 

 

Once again, you get it wrong. This time you fell for a fake. (At the time this article was published the total number of signatories was 1609)

Climate list claim melts away under closer inspection

 

PolitiFact FL: Not all 1.6K signatories of declaration against climate change were scientists

The updated version with 1,609 signatories, published Aug. 14, marked 12 people as deceased. Among the scientists, specialties included geology, chemistry, physics and agriculture. Those with climate expertise were few.

The list included engineers, doctors, lawyers, mathematicians, architects, entrepreneurs, and economists. Others did not list any occupation at all. Some descriptions read:

"Sceptical (sic) Scientific Contrarian in the Climate Debate"
"Leadership development and coaching"
"Physicist and YouTuber"
"Sculptor, designer and innovator"

https://www.wusf.org/environment/2023-10-11/politifact-fl-not-all-1-6k-signatories-declaration-against-climate-change-scientists

 

 WHAT WAS CLAIMED

1609 scientists have signed a declaration stating there is no climate emergency.

OUR VERDICT

False. The list of signatories includes lawyers, teachers, IT workers and relatively few climate scientists.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/climate-list-claim-melts-away-under-closer-inspection/

Edited May 9 by placeholder

[sidneybear]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

Once again, you get it wrong. This time you fell for a fake. (At the time this article was published the total number of signatories was 1609)

Climate list claim melts away under closer inspection

 

PolitiFact FL: Not all 1.6K signatories of declaration against climate change were scientists

The updated version with 1,609 signatories, published Aug. 14, marked 12 people as deceased. Among the scientists, specialties included geology, chemistry, physics and agriculture. Those with climate expertise were few.

The list included engineers, doctors, lawyers, mathematicians, architects, entrepreneurs, and economists. Others did not list any occupation at all. Some descriptions read:

"Sceptical (sic) Scientific Contrarian in the Climate Debate"
"Leadership development and coaching"
"Physicist and YouTuber"
"Sculptor, designer and innovator"

https://www.wusf.org/environment/2023-10-11/politifact-fl-not-all-1-6k-signatories-declaration-against-climate-change-scientists

 

 WHAT WAS CLAIMED

1609 scientists have signed a declaration stating there is no climate emergency.

OUR VERDICT

False. The list of signatories includes lawyers, teachers, IT workers and relatively few climate scientists.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/climate-list-claim-melts-away-under-closer-inspection/

Follow the money trail to see that these phoney "fact checking" outfits are themselves fake. Politfact is funded by inter alia the Poynter Institute, and look at all the lefty outfits that fund them: 

 

https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/

 

Dig around a bit and you’ll see that Bill Gates is another contributor.

 

All this climate hogwash is political or commercial. Haven't you realised it yet? Why are you so gullible?

 

Now please provide me with your analysis on the storage problem. 

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

Follow the money trail to see that these phoney "fact checking" outfits are themselves fake. Politfact is funded by inter alia the Poynter Institute, and look at all the lefty outfits that fund them: 

 

https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/

 

Dig around a bit and you’ll see that Bill Gates is another contributor.

 

All this climate hogwash is political or commercial. Haven't you realised it yet? Why are you so gullible?

 

Now please provide me with your analysis on the storage problem. 

Once again, rather than address the facts, you try to slur the source. The facts are clear, Not only are very very few of the signatories not climatologists, but a large number of them aren't even scientists.  Once again, you've got nothing.

[sidneybear]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Once again, rather than address the facts, you try to slur the source. The facts are clear, Not only are very very few of the signatories not climatologists, but a large number of them aren't even scientists.  Once again, you've got nothing.

What is a "climatologist" exactly? Is it someone funded by the green industry who feeds phoney data into made up algorithms? Just like those covid "scientists" did, eh? Lots of people on the list are highly educated people covering a wide range of disciplines, including Nobel laureates, etcetera. 

 

Give me your analysis of the storage problem, or I'll start thinking you're a link posting bot. Googling links means you're bone idle, and unable to introduce your own analysis into the debate.

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

What is a "climatologist" exactly? Is it someone funded by the green industry who feeds phoney data into made up algorithms? Just like those covid "scientists" did, eh? Lots of people on the list are highly educated people covering a wide range of disciplines, including Nobel laureates, etcetera. 

 

Give me your analysis of the storage problem, or I'll start thinking you're a link posting bot. Googling links means you're bone idle, and unable to introduce your own analysis into the debate.

"What is a "climatologist" exactly? Is it someone funded by the green industry who feeds phoney data into made up algorithms?"

More conspiracy claims from you.

Who care how highly educated some of the people on that list are? If you had a health problem, would you go to a geologist for treatment? In your world, apparently, there is no such thing as expertise.

[sidneybear]

23 minutes ago, placeholder said:

"What is a "climatologist" exactly? Is it someone funded by the green industry who feeds phoney data into made up algorithms?"

More conspiracy claims from you.

Who care how highly educated some of the people on that list are? If you had a health problem, would you go to a geologist for treatment? In your world, apparently, there is no such thing as expertise.

And in your world, there's no such thing as analytical thinking. 

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

And in your world, there's no such thing as analytical thinking. 

I just offered an example that is a demonstration of analytic thinking. It dismantled the claim that because educated people had signed onto this document, that somehow supported its validity.

[sidneybear]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

I just offered an example that is a demonstration of analytic thinking. It dismantled the claim that because educated people had signed onto this document, that somehow supported its validity.

It's a bit cooler today. Try not to worry about the weather so much. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, sidneybear said:

It's a bit cooler today. Try not to worry about the weather so much. 

Another demonstration that you don't understand the difference between climate and weather. Even sharing with you a simple definition of "climate" apparently wasn't sufficient to dispel your confusion.

[sidneybear]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Another demonstration that you don't understand the difference between climate and weather. Even sharing with you a simple definition of "climate" apparently wasn't sufficient to dispel your confusion.

Do you stay at home to minimise your carbon footprint, or do you fly around in carbon belching aircraft? You post here, so I'm guessing the latter, which means you aren't part of the solution to your imaginary problem, which in turn means you don't really believe in the so-called "climate emergency" yourself, preferring to lecture others.

 

Stop fretting about the weather, and enjoy your life. 

 

[placeholder]

49 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

Do you stay at home to minimise your carbon footprint, or do you fly around in carbon belching aircraft? You post here, so I'm guessing the latter, which means you aren't part of the solution to your imaginary problem, which in turn means you don't really believe in the so-called "climate emergency" yourself, preferring to lecture others.

 

Stop fretting about the weather, and enjoy your life. 

 

Making it personal is just another piece of evidence that you've got nothing.

[sidneybear]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Making it personal is just another piece of evidence that you've got nothing.

Practice what you preach, or you've got nothing. 

[kwilco]

On 5/3/2024 at 12:35 AM, hotchilli said:

Climates have change throughout history, Thailands ability to master them has not.

 

[Merrill]

On 5/3/2024 at 12:48 AM, hotchilli said:

Take it easy fella... no need for the huge print.

This isn't Tik Tok 

Totally rubbish climate has always changed never been stable. 65 volcanoes goes off a day around the World most underwater and each one produces more Co2 and other than man does in 100 years if he ran every car day and night. This plant has been around billions of years we are no threat after what Mother Earth has endured. We are polluting oh yes the arrogance of man to produce a bottle use once and throw away that has a half life of 100 years.No my friends when we become a problem to this world Mother Earth will correct us very quickly, as it has in the passed. No this all about greed and control and the old one gets the more obvious it becomes. 1971 Radio Times Ice Age Cometh anyone remember. Petrol will all be gone in 20 Years Lol sorry you just can’t make it up. The most prolific liquid on Earth is water and second it is  ok I will wait. Oil every road is tarred with oil every car is made using oil clothing made from oil. You see folks oil is an Abiotic and is made deep in the Earth with pressure and hydrocarbons there is no shortage. 
ok I feel better I have that off my chest. Don’t fall for the BS

[StandardIssue]

On 5/3/2024 at 7:12 AM, Rampant Rabbit said:

is the main greenhouse gas

Water vapor is main greehouse gas? Joking? So we need to stop the clouds from forming somehow? Are you joking?

 

Man, there are some mixed up and not very educated people here. Were asleep in science class.

 

Main greehouse gases are Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Fluorinated gases (like Freon).

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

 

I think there must be some some flat earthers here on AN.

[StandardIssue]

48 minutes ago, Merrill said:

Totally rubbish climate has always changed never been stable. 65 volcanoes goes off a day around the World most underwater and each one produces more Co2 and other than man does in 100 years if he ran every car day and night. This plant has been around billions of years we are no threat after what Mother Earth has endured. We are polluting oh yes the arrogance of man to produce a bottle use once and throw away that has a half life of 100 years.No my friends when we become a problem to this world Mother Earth will correct us very quickly, as it has in the passed. No this all about greed and control and the old one gets the more obvious it becomes. 1971 Radio Times Ice Age Cometh anyone remember. Petrol will all be gone in 20 Years Lol sorry you just can’t make it up. The most prolific liquid on Earth is water and second it is  ok I will wait. Oil every road is tarred with oil every car is made using oil clothing made from oil. You see folks oil is an Abiotic and is made deep in the Earth with pressure and hydrocarbons there is no shortage. 
ok I feel better I have that off my chest. Don’t fall for the BS

 

Obviously asleep during science class. Another self proclaimed expert. Yes the earth will go on long after we are gone but the continued introduction of carbon dioxide and other green house gases by the TON per minute, by man made mechanisms is NOT NATURAL and is akin to what scientists call "terra forming". This is something that has been proposed to make Mars habitable. Just because you cannot understand the cause of climate change doesn't mean it is not real. The warming of the planet is confirmed time and time again by the majority of the worlds scientists and the cause is the introduction of tons and tons of greenhouse gases produced by cars, all kinds of industrial factories and power generation plants etc. This is not natural. Yes the earth will survive but man is dumping tons and tons of toxic gases into the air we breath daily, This will make the earth damn near uninhabitable soon (within 100 years) unless something is done quickly.

 

Think about just this.. how much exhaust is being spewed into the air each minute by the millions of cars constantly running all around the world 24/7 365 days a year. The amount of exhaust and all it's toxic gases is measured in TONS per minute.

Edited September 12 by StandardIssue

[Lacessit]

On 5/6/2024 at 11:28 AM, sidneybear said:

I'd much rather read your paraphrased opinion of what you find online, rather than just links to it without your own analysis, or author's voice. Anyone can Google and post links, many of which might present both sides of the same argument, but it takes skill to interpret them and apply their content to real world situations.

 

In relation to these batteries, what's your opinion on how production could be scaled to make renewables a real contender, obviating the need for base load generation (fossil fuels and nuclear) that still can't be done without when there's no sun and wind? $20 per kWh is $20,000,000 per GWh, GW being the realm that power generation is usually talked about. A 1 GW nuclear power reactor, for example, can produce nearly 24 GWh of power per day. it feasible to scale up the production of three batteries to that level, by when, and at what environmental impact? Of course, batteries are useless unless they're charged, so what kind of renewable generation infrastructure would need to be built to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, taking into account increased demand from EVs? I'm interested in your own analysis, rather than just links here.

South Australia generates 70% of its energy from renewable sources, target 100% by 2027.

 

Backup storage as per link.

 

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

 

According to a CSIRO study, nuclear is by far the most expensive form of electricity.

Edited September 12 by Lacessit

[MarkBR]

On 5/8/2024 at 4:40 PM, placeholder said:

 

 

The sense I get from the MIT article I've linked to is that it could take centuries to return the climate more or less to where it was before (keeping in mind that climates are dynamic moving targets) but not millennia.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-long-will-it-take-temperatures-stop-rising-or-return-normal-if-we-stop-emitting#:~:text=Temperatures will likely stop rising,we started burning fossil fuels.

But no one knows for sure.

Also, none of the scenarios addressed in this article posited active CO2 removal intervention by humans over and above natural processes. I don't hold out much hope for that being feasible anytime soon, but who knows?

Depends on the computer model & the assumptions within the model.  The range of estimates vary in terms of estimates even at the most conservative, and the error range is also large.  MIT is usually a very good source of info.  Thank you for the link - hopefully, and interesting & informative link.

This is something for climate scientists, statisticians & computer scientists to argue about; far beyond what little knowledge I have in this field.

[Merrill]

10 hours ago, StandardIssue said:

 

Obviously asleep during science class. Another self proclaimed expert. Yes the earth will go on long after we are gone but the continued introduction of carbon dioxide and other green house gases by the TON per minute, by man made mechanisms is NOT NATURAL and is akin to what scientists call "terra forming". This is something that has been proposed to make Mars habitable. Just because you cannot understand the cause of climate change doesn't mean it is not real. The warming of the planet is confirmed time and time again by the majority of the worlds scientists and the cause is the introduction of tons and tons of greenhouse gases produced by cars, all kinds of industrial factories and power generation plants etc. This is not natural. Yes the earth will survive but man is dumping tons and tons of toxic gases into the air we breath daily, This will make the earth damn near uninhabitable soon (within 100 years) unless something is done quickly.

 

Think about just this.. how much exhaust is being spewed into the air each minute by the millions of cars constantly running all around the world 24/7 365 days a year. The amount of exhaust and all it's toxic gases is measured in TONS per minute.

One Volcano produces more than man does did you read the post or just believe the Scientists who follow the money? When I was in Africa during Co*vid not one person got Co*vid that did not have a TV. As a known fact, rural Africans were 100% free of the bug , they say it was from the TV. DRC 1 million people fleeing the eruption on the only road out Not one died from the flu Strange don't you think? 

 

[StandardIssue]

2 hours ago, Merrill said:

One Volcano produces more than man does did you read the post or just believe the Scientists who follow the money? When I was in Africa during Co*vid not one person got Co*vid that did not have a TV. As a known fact, rural Africans were 100% free of the bug , they say it was from the TV. DRC 1 million people fleeing the eruption on the only road out Not one died from the flu Strange don't you think? 

 

Is the earth also flat? Man not land on the moon? Aliens walk among us? Is the US census a conspiracy to make your children gay? The illuminati created Covid 19 to inject us all with CIA Nano bots? What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?

 

Oh man, I'm sad for you. I don't know where you are getting your so called facts but they are completely back asswards.

 

Oh and BTW there has been no increase in volcanic activity in the last 100 years to explain all the extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Do yourself a favor, if you can't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation I humbly ask you to just not participate.

Edited September 12 by StandardIssue

[Merrill]

All the best to you Sir you have the right to your opinion as do I we have to respect that rather than ridicule what we don’t understand. Yes for many years man did believe the Earth was flat but time and education we overcame our predigest. I can remember when my mothers Dr told her 20 cigarets a day would clear her chest 1955 I believe the year was. So we all grow and learn just  some take just a bit longer to see the light.  With Respect 

[Merrill]

6 hours ago, StandardIssue said:

Is the earth also flat? Man not land on the moon? Aliens walk among us? Is the US census a conspiracy to make your children gay? The illuminati created Covid 19 to inject us all with CIA Nano bots? What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?

 

Oh man, I'm sad for you. I don't know where you are getting your so called facts but they are completely back asswards.

 

Oh and BTW there has been no increase in volcanic activity in the last 100 years to explain all the extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Do yourself a favor, if you can't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation I humbly ask you to just not participate.

Sir CO2 is vital to growth ice core sample show it to be the lowest for millions of years at .04% man is responsible for 0.01 of that number that is the data.  Those are meaningful facts to contribute also it was Al gore who pioneered “man mad climate change” recently changed to “Global Warming “ due to the fact the climate has always changed Conspiracy the Rory was coined by the CIA to silence any critical thinking who were not towing the narrative and not conforming to what the TV told us

[bkknirvana]

Man made climate change is nonsense because there is no credible evidence. What they have is based on 150 years of data, assuming they haven't manipulated it. The earth has been around a bit longer.

 

If you believe their BS then you are brainwashed or a fool.

[MarkBR]

Utter rubbish. An abundance of evidence exists.  In UK we have snowdrops & winter aconites flowering in December & January.  These used to flower in late February & early March a 100 years ago.  Just one example.

There are many more, check up online using rational websites.

[bkknirvana]

Australian broadcaster, Alan Jones, utterly schools a panel of climate zealots on the reality of the #ClimateScam.

 

"CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, and human beings are responsible for 3% of that 0.04%... It's like saying: 'There's a granule of sugar on the Harbour Bridge. Clean the bridge up, it's dirty'."

[Rimmer]

A post discussing moderation has been removed

[gamb00ler]

On 5/3/2024 at 6:30 PM, sidneybear said:

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

 

The idiots back the other side.... what could go wrong?