Heatwave and Climate Change Puts Pressure on Thailand

[bkknirvana]

Scientists that have not been cancelled are corrupt. We saw this during the scamdemic.

 

Do you own research. ALWAYS!

[gamb00ler]

On 5/3/2024 at 4:02 AM, webfact said:

Thailand has been hammered by searing heatwaves this year, leading to dire consequences such as infrastructure failures and a rise in fatalities. These weather events have offered a stark glimpse into the potential impacts of climate change on the country. 

 

On 5/4/2024 at 12:04 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

BS!

Hot weather for a couple of days has little to nothing to do with climate change.

If there are a few colder as usual days we also don't read the next ice age is approaching fast.

 

Did you miss the word "glimpse" in the OP's post?

In other words.... it's only a small portion of the story.   A heatwave is indeed a glimpse of the future.... it's going to get warmer in the next few decades.

 

The absolute changes in temperature do not look that scary but they will greatly increase the variance in many local weather effects.  Different areas will have widely different changes in their local climate depending on their local geography and proximity to the oceans.

[proton]

1 hour ago, bkknirvana said:

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'."

 

Spot on, the climate is changing, it has been for billions of years and there is not much we can do about it. Mans contrition to global warming is minuscule, if a country like the UK, which is obsessed with this net zero nonsense, sank beneath the waves tomorrow it would make zero change. 

[OneMoreFarang]

30 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Did you miss the word "glimpse" in the OP's post?

In other words.... it's only a small portion of the story.   A heatwave is indeed a glimpse of the future.... it's going to get warmer in the next few decades.

 

The absolute changes in temperature do not look that scary but they will greatly increase the variance in many local weather effects.  Different areas will have widely different changes in their local climate depending on their local geography and proximity to the oceans.

 

So, according to you, if it is usually cold, then that might be a glimpse into the future, maybe in the next decades or thousands of years. The next ice age will come, sure.

 

"The absolute changes in temperature do not look that scary but they will greatly increase" that is a prediction based on inaccurate climate models. I don't deny that human activity has consequences. But which consequences when, that is a wide-open question. 

 

 

[gamb00ler]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

So, according to you, if it is usually cold, then that might be a glimpse into the future, maybe in the next decades or thousands of years. The next ice age will come, sure.

 

"The absolute changes in temperature do not look that scary but they will greatly increase" that is a prediction based on inaccurate climate models. I don't deny that human activity has consequences. But which consequences when, that is a wide-open question. 

 

 

This post seems more misguided than what I normally expect from you.

 

When you know the planet is going to get warmer... it's not much of stretch to realize that any area that regularly suffers heatwaves will very likely experience them more frequently and/or more intensely.  The specific geography determines an area's climate tendencies. It will be rare that the changes in the climate will alter those tendencies.

 

Additional energy added to the atmosphere in the form of heat will make the extreme heat events more common.  Is that not obvious to you?

[gamb00ler]

3 hours ago, bkknirvana said:

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'."

You clearly think his (and your) gross simplification has included all the germane facts.  Sadly, that's not even close to being true.

[OneMoreFarang]

12 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

This post seems more misguided than what I normally expect from you.

 

When you know the planet is going to get warmer... it's not much of stretch to realize that any area that regularly suffers heatwaves will very likely experience them more frequently and/or more intensely.  The specific geography determines an area's climate tendencies. It will be rare that the changes in the climate will alter those tendencies.

 

Additional energy added to the atmosphere in the form of heat will make the extreme heat events more common.  Is that not obvious to you?

 

It is obvious to me that humans are one factor for the long-term climate change. There are many other factors.

Lots of what is published is about CO2. CO2 is obviously important, but CO2 is less than 0.05% of our atmosphere. There are lots of other things going on. But often CO2 is the only thing which lots of "climate experts" talk about.

 

I think we should look at the bigger picture. Reading or watching Bjørn Lomborg is a good start. 

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

It is obvious to me that humans are one factor for the long-term climate change. There are many other factors.

Lots of what is published is about CO2. CO2 is obviously important, but CO2 is less than 0.05% of our atmosphere. There are lots of other things going on. But often CO2 is the only thing which lots of "climate experts" talk about.

 

I think we should look at the bigger picture. Reading or watching Bjørn Lomborg is a good start. 

It is not only co2 in the atmosphere that is the problem, it is the co2 in the oceans as well, and how that will kick back in near future, 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, proton said:

 

Spot on, the climate is changing, it has been for billions of years and there is not much we can do about it. Mans contrition to global warming is minuscule, if a country like the UK, which is obsessed with this net zero nonsense, sank beneath the waves tomorrow it would make zero change. 

 

Watched a dozen documentaries over the past month to find out that climate change is blamed for the plagues of Exodus.  It's partially responsible for the movement of people that contributed to the Black Death.  The Little Ice Age.  It's responsible for the decline of the SW USA's Anasazi culture, and probably the Aztecs and the Incas.  The Sahara used to be a lush forest before climate changed.  And a dozen other pre-industrial human catastrophes.  The operative word there being "pre-industrial"

 

I have no doubt that climate change is real, and it will devastate some cultures, and nurture others.  But it was happening for millions (billions?) of years before humans even existed.  So I'm not in favor of decimating economies to fight it.  We may need that money to care for the victims of the natural climate change.   

 

Edit:  And it may be handy to have that extra plant food in the atmosphere if people need to start cultivating, for example, Greenland.

 

Edited September 15 by impulse

[proton]

35 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

It is obvious to me that humans are one factor for the long-term climate change. There are many other factors.

Lots of what is published is about CO2. CO2 is obviously important, but CO2 is less than 0.05% of our atmosphere. There are lots of other things going on. But often CO2 is the only thing which lots of "climate experts" talk about.

 

I think we should look at the bigger picture. Reading or watching Bjørn Lomborg is a good start. 

 

How is it obvious? man made Co2 contributions to the atmosphere is too minuscule to make any difference, so what are all these 'lots of other things going on', apart from the hot air on the internet'?

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

It is obvious to me that humans are one factor for the long-term climate change. There are many other factors.

Lots of what is published is about CO2. CO2 is obviously important, but CO2 is less than 0.05% of our atmosphere. There are lots of other things going on. But often CO2 is the only thing which lots of "climate experts" talk about.

 

I think we should look at the bigger picture. Reading or watching Bjørn Lomborg is a good start. 

I assume you do know that the N₂, O₂ and Argon do not interfere with the radiation of infrared energy leaving the earth at night?  That's why "nobody" includes them when discussing global warming.  Those 3 gases constitute 99.5% of the atmosphere and as far as infrared light is concerned they may as well be absent.  Those gases basically have no interaction with the light in the infrared spectrum.

 

Since US election seems to be a hot topic... if you  consider those 3 gases plus CO₂ as the electorate.... only CO₂ votes and the other 99.5% don't.  People would naturally only be talking about CO₂.

 

It is only the greenhouse gases that absorb some of the infrared energy that normally radiates out into space during the local night time hours.  Some of that energy is then re-radiated back towards Earth and some does escape out into space.  Bottom line is a small absolute change in the amount (relative to the entire atmosphere) of CO₂ creates a much more significant percentage change in the amount of heat escaping (cooling) the Earth.

 

It's simple math.  No complicated chemical reactions/interactions.  Just some basic knowledge about physics and chemical bonds, etc.

Edited September 15 by gamb00ler

[OneMoreFarang]

14 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I assume you do know that the N₂, O₂ and Argon do not interfere with the radiation of infrared energy leaving the earth at night?  That's why "nobody" includes them when discussing global warming.  Those 3 gases constitute 99.5% of the atmosphere and as far as infrared light is concerned they may as well be absent.  Those gases basically have no interaction with the light in the infrared spectrum.

 

Since US election seems to be a hot topic... if you  consider those 3 gases plus CO₂ as the electorate.... only CO₂ votes and the other 99.5% don't.  People would naturally only be talking about CO₂.

 

It is only the greenhouse gases that absorb some of the infrared energy that normally radiates out into space during the local night time hours.  Some of that energy is then re-radiated back towards Earth and some does escape out into space.  Bottom line is a small absolute change in the percentage of CO₂ creates a much more significant percentage change in the amount of heat escaping (cooling) the Earth.

 

It's simple math.  No complicated chemical reactions/interactions.  Just some basic knowledge about physics and chemical bonds, etc.

 

"It's simple math." Are you serious? There is nothing simple about climate.

The only simple thing is if simple people only look at small details and then call that simple.

It's like this wonderful wind energy and solar energy. If that would be everywhere life would be so wonderful. No! It's not easy like that.

 

I am sure you know about CO2 and photosynthesis. And all the plants in this world. Is that easy? No.

And that is just a tiny part of what influences climate.

 

 

 

 

 

[gamb00ler]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am sure you know about CO2 and photosynthesis. And all the plants in this world. Is that easy? No.

And that is just a tiny part of what influences climate.

But the scale of the effect of photosynthesis pales in comparison to reduced cooling of the planet through reduction of escaping infrared light.

 

When you puncture your hull on an iceberg, bailing with a teacup helps.... but not much.

Edited September 15 by gamb00ler

[gamb00ler]

10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

"It's simple math." Are you serious?

OK.... I didn't say that simple math will solve the problem.  I should have said "The math is simple".  The math you used was just plain wrong.  It doesn't matter the percentage of N₂ O₂ are of the entire atmosphere.  That is a terminal error in logic.  The only relevant number is the aggregate amount in weight or volume of the greenhouse gases. 

[Hummin]

Some peak information here, 

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

10 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The only relevant number is the aggregate amount in weight or volume of the greenhouse gases. 

 

So that is in your opinion the only factor which has to be considered for any changes in the climate? Correct?

Think again!

 

Weather forecast is difficult. Climate forecast is a lot more difficult. It is so complicated that nobody is able to do it.

Of course, there are climate models about what might change if this is changed or that is changed. But they are just models, limited models, they are not reality.

 

It would be nice if we could predict how the weather and the climate will change if we do A, B or C. We can't! We try, and I am sure the climate models are getting better, but they are far away from good or reliable in the moment.

 

 

[gamb00ler]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

So that is in your opinion the only factor which has to be considered for any changes in the climate? Correct?

Think again!

 

Weather forecast is difficult. Climate forecast is a lot more difficult. It is so complicated that nobody is able to do it.

Of course, there are climate models about what might change if this is changed or that is changed. But they are just models, limited models, they are not reality.

 

It would be nice if we could predict how the weather and the climate will change if we do A, B or C. We can't! We try, and I am sure the climate models are getting better, but they are far away from good or reliable in the moment.

 

 

Show me where I said "the only factor"  in climate change!!!!

You math about CO₂ was rubbish.  That's what I pointed out.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Show me where I said "the only factor"  in climate change!!!!

You math about CO₂ was rubbish.  That's what I pointed out.

 

I did not post any math about CO2. I only pointed out that CO2 is just a very small part in our atmosphere. And I know that a small part can be an important part. 

I am sure there are thousands of factors which influence climate change. Some more important, some not so important. But if someone tries to predict climate change for 100 years and more, then even the little not so important factors make a difference.

 

It's complicated. And we shouldn't pretend it is not complicated. That's my only point here.

[gamb00ler]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Lots of what is published is about CO2. CO2 is obviously important, but CO2 is less than 0.05% of our atmosphere. There are lots of other things going on. But often CO2 is the only thing which lots of "climate experts" talk about.

 

 

40 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I did not post any math about CO2. I only pointed out that CO2 is just a very small part in our atmosphere.

 

Your first statement implies that you consider the percentage of CO₂ in the atmosphere to be relevant.  It is not.  While not exactly a mathematical statement you include the percentage to show that you use the mathematical concept of ratio to undermine the argument that CO₂ is a crucial factor.  You then go further by putting the climate experts phrase in quotes implying that they're not real experts because they only talk about CO₂.  Clearly you don't understand the mechanism of global warming because you don't understand which mathematics is relevant.

[Chadnik]

For the record, Bangkok has been perfectly typical. Typical temps, typical rainy season. We enjoyed a short and not especially hot season. What was abnormal was no cold weather Dec Jan .. none.

 

Rain and stickiness aside I think BKK weather quite good last few weeks. Some very lovely mornings. I realize BKK ain't Thailand, but there it is.

 

The world may be on balance getting warmer. O don't think its at all conclusive its man made. Moreover, who cares India, China still gonna burn coal. 1% not giving up mansions and jets. Obama not sold his beachfront 20M usd property.

 

Green washing hysteria.

Edited September 15 by Chadnik

[gamb00ler]

2 minutes ago, Chadnik said:

For the record, Bangkok has been perfectly typical. Typical temps, typical rainy season. We enjoyed a short and not especially hot season. What was abnormal was no cold weather .. none.

 

Rain and stickiness aside I think BKK weather quite good last few weeks. Some very lovely mornings. I realize BKK ain't Thailand, but there it is.

 

Green washing hysteria.

yeah.... green washing   VS    I'm OK so everybody else should be     so funny!

[Chadnik]

17 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

yeah.... green washing   VS    I'm OK so everybody else should be     so funny!

 

Henny penny sky is falling!!

 

Wealthy and powerful people doing absolutely nothing except dreaming up the next BS tax for the poor to pay to combat Global Warming™©®

 

Half the world burns coal like it was 1821 lol.

 

The wealthy just laugh.

 

Heres my contribution:

1. Twenty years no personal vehicle

2. Reduce plastic purchases as possible

3. Walk or public transport to go anywhere, 99.9 purchased goods .. F2F not via courier

4. Limit electronic purchases

5. No children

6. Eat local, only purchase fancy foreign food when on fire-sale. No 'need'

7. Air flights limited

8. No pets

9. Keep plants

10. Separate trash

Bonus: Tell global alarmists to KMA

 

In the end, I have at best 35 years on this planet. I don't give half a F

 

By the way the covid models were all wrong why should we have any faith at all in the global warming models?

 

The idea that somehow we can do something about changing the climate when humanity can't even stop small, silly wars or even something as ridiculous as polio. Yeah, its back. It's disingenuous.

 

I've seen what world government does with covid and I don't expect we will fare well under the global warming police.

Edited September 15 by Chadnik

[OneMoreFarang]

30 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Your first statement implies that you consider the percentage of CO₂ in the atmosphere to be relevant.  It is not.  While not exactly a mathematical statement you include the percentage to show that you use the mathematical concept of ratio to undermine the argument that CO₂ is a crucial factor.  You then go further by putting the climate experts phrase in quotes implying that they're not real experts because they only talk about CO₂.  Clearly you don't understand the mechanism of global warming because you don't understand which mathematics is relevant.

 

Maybe you should look up the definition of mathematics. I am pretty good with mathematics, and I can assure you that pointing out that there is x% of A in B has nothing to do with mathematics.

 

If you follow the news and research then you should know that now "everybody" talks about climate change or the climate catastrophe, etc. Media corporations have their own climate experts and all the time they publish more and more and more information. And basically, it's all the same. Or at least it's all in the same direction. Nobody is allowed to question the narrative. No money is given to researchers who see the situation more critical. As soon as anybody questions the climate catastrophe narrative others try to shut him down or cancel him or whatever they call it these days.

 

It doesn't make sense for me to try to explain to you that climate is complicated. A lot more complicated than you and me are able to understand. At least I know that it's complicated and that I can't predict the climate. You seem to think you know enough about it. I won't try anymore to convince you that you know a lot less than you think you know.

 

Have a nice evening. Take it easy. 

[Chadnik]

Another related point

 

For the past year there has been Non-Stop negative stories about wind and solar power. They start with projects being abandoned but they also discuss all of the pollution and destruction that they do to the environment

 

I think every automotive company aside from Tesla has revamped or even dropped electric vehicles. Batteries are just an absolutely horrible idea in vehicle. Electric vehicles create the same waste and pollution as ice vehicle.. they just do it in another place.

 

Wind and solar pollution is now well known and being abandoned. It was a hoax. Solar panels may have a place in rule settings but again the environmental damage and pollution outweighs. Totally common knowledge. That crap ain't green lol.

 

Thailand is sadly ramping up all sorts of ridiculous new energy programs when they could burn gas and do nuclear.

 

Finally, the now profile of this website is totally woke so its no surprise to find such article here pushing the standard woke pap.

Edited September 15 by Chadnik

[gamb00ler]

33 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It doesn't make sense for me to try to explain to you that climate is complicated. A lot more complicated than you and me are able to understand. At least I know that it's complicated and that I can't predict the climate. You seem to think you know enough about it. I won't try anymore to convince you that you know a lot less than you think you know.

Don't expand the scope of my comments.

 

Can you show any of my comments supporting your theory of my failure to understand the complexity of solutions to climate change?

 

I only addressed your view that the world is overemphasizing the importance of limiting CO₂ emissions.  I made no comments on any other aspects of climate change.

 

Nearly all of the global rise in temperature is due to greenhouse gases.  CO₂ is  the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases and accounts for 60% of their effect.

Edited September 15 by gamb00ler

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

CO₂ is  the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases and accounts for 60% of their effect.

Are you sure it's not 56%? Or maybe 62%?

There are lots of rough estimations. And long-term rough estimations don't make much sense.

[Chadnik]

10 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Nearly all of the global rise in temperature is due to greenhouse gases.  CO₂ is  the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases and accounts for 60% of their effect.

 

I'm sure the plants love it then. Don't be such a hater. Why do you hate plant life? You're probably a vegan or something like that as well but you hate plants. Dont hate plants they give us oxygen and are pretty.

 

Globalist cabal killing off people at plenty fast rate for us to not worry about any of this nonsense. The world is now begging for children (wage serfs). All the eaters will rebalance so just chill out bud

[Chadnik]

John Kerry. Political grifter pushing globalist WEF climate agenda. His wife (he) owns a jet, uses it in his position and bills US government. Putting aside the ownership.. should an individual that is whinging about climate drama be flying anything but coach? I think not. The optics are so far off. But he and his politician body is simply don't care. That's because the whole thing isn't real.

 

He is the embodiment of why i don't give a F and know the entire thing is a charade. If it were real it would be treated not as the joke that it is but with deadly seriousness

 

Nobody in power cares any farther than their ability to tax us plebs. Thats it

Edited September 15 by Chadnik

[gamb00ler]

2 hours ago, Chadnik said:

 

I'm sure the plants love it then. Don't be such a hater. Why do you hate plant life? You're probably a vegan or something like that as well but you hate plants. Dont hate plants they give us oxygen and are pretty.

 

Globalist cabal killing off people at plenty fast rate for us to not worry about any of this nonsense. The world is now begging for children (wage serfs). All the eaters will rebalance so just chill out bud

sure.. plants like CO₂.  Big deal!  We're not short of plants.  Plants are definitely more useful than poorly educated voters.

[gamb00ler]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Are you sure it's not 56%? Or maybe 62%?

There are lots of rough estimations. And long-term rough estimations don't make much sense.

 The quality and logic or your posts seems to be in serious decline and seem more like an attempt to hide your serious knowledge gaps in some sciences.