Heatwave and Climate Change Puts Pressure on Thailand

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, BE88 said:

Heat on earth is mainly due to solar particles which provide an average energy of 400 Watts/m2/day

And, it should be noted that the heat produced by humanity is less than 0.00001 of that graciously provided by the solar star.

The heat produced by humanity is utterly irrelevant to the issue of global warming. It has never been part of the scientific discussion What is relevant is the effect of greenhouse gases on certain bandwidths of solar radiation after they come into contact with various portions of planet earth.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Barnet1900 said:

Great post.

 

I would never have thought COVID would be seen in my lifetime but it did.

 

I can honestly see this heat destroying the Thai economy within 10 years. With this heat nobody goes out, work stalls and people will look at other areas to travel to.

 

Unless Thailand takes this seriously they'll be facing an exodus which will be irreparable. 

 

This, and last summer have been dreadful. 

Well, this is an El Nino year was was last summer. Now that a La Nina is on the way, temperatures should be lower next year. But they're still most likely going to be hotter, on average, than they were, say 10 years ago. There's not much anyone can do to stop this rise of temperature. Even if the world  were to achieve net zero tomorrow, average temperatures would still go up for a while before the rise was stopped. And, of course, by itself, Thailand can't make a significant difference to the rate of global warming.

[RocketDog]

On 5/2/2024 at 4:46 PM, flyingtlger said:

 

 

Hell hath come upon us.....

Divine wrath for your mongering ways no doubt.

😃

[RocketDog]

On 5/2/2024 at 5:59 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

 

We need some easier way to automate italicization.

 

Anyway, being a genius, I like to use BIG WORDS, you know.

 

Just adjust your entire screen smaller, or hold it farther away from your face, and you will be fine.

 

No worries, Buddy.

 

 

Your modesty is overwhelming gamma

[RocketDog]

On 5/2/2024 at 6:03 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Take a BETTER Look, FELLA....

 

The huge print you object to is just an image posted from the title of a research paper.

 

This is an IMAGE and there is no way to adjust the font pitch.

 

You DO know what the pitch of a font is, right?

 

Anyway, as I say, since this is an IMAGE, the size and type of fonts cannot be adjusted.

 

Capisce?

 

 

 

 

Pitch is the character spacing, not the size genius.

Capisce?

[Robert Paulson]

Thunder just half woke me up. First time in a long time. It’s gonna cool of you whiny snivlers. Grow a pair for next years april heat please

[sidneybear]

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

 Assertions without evidence are empty. Why should I care what you would rather read? Why should I spend time paraphrasing when I offer brief, clear  quotes that support my arguments? What purpose would that serve?  And I don't see why I should, given that those quotes are accompanied by links to sources that do an admirable job of explaining of these complex issues.

It seems to me that you prefer what are colloquially referred to as B.S. sessions. Sessions where you can claim without offering any independent evidence that climatologists are publishing false results in order to serve their paymasters . Or you  characterize authoritative sources as liars without your offering any independent evidence. You have clearly demonstrated that when your assertions are countered with evidence you resort to unsupported slurs or empty denials. It's you who need to change your method of discourse. Not me.

 

 

All you do is Google and post links to unproven academic research and prototype technology, or anything else that supports the warmist creed, without adding any of your own insights. You have nothing. 

 

[jacko45k]

On 5/3/2024 at 7:07 AM, Bobthegimp said:

This makes no sense. If it was hot enough for one motorbike to spontaneously combust, many more would have. 

Very few Thai owned ones have more than a few thimblefuls of fuel in them at any one time. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, sidneybear said:

All you do is Google and post links to unproven academic research and prototype technology, or anything else that supports the warmist creed, without adding any of your own insights. You have nothing. 

 

Let me see. I cited research from some of the most prestigious scientific journals. And that is what you call unproven academic research? I cite a couple of examples of companies that are actually manufacturing batteries and you dismiss that as theoretical. As for insights...was your claim that nobody knows what percentage of CO2 comes from fossil fuels one of those "insights"? What you call insights a rational observer would call "making things up" or maybe science fiction. 

[GammaGlobulin]

10 hours ago, RocketDog said:

Your modesty is overwhelming gamma

 

Yes, and why is this?

 

Reason:  I practice humility every day.

 

Humble Pie is one of my favorite dishes.

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

10 hours ago, RocketDog said:

Pitch is the character spacing, not the size genius.

Capisce?

 

Yes.

I know.

 

 

Please read the above, CAREFULLY.

 

"The pitch was most often used as a measurement of the size of typewriter fonts." 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(typewriter)#:~:text=Pitch is the number of,impact printers used with computers.

 

 

[sidneybear]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Let me see. I cited research from some of the most prestigious scientific journals. And that is what you call unproven academic research? I cite a couple of examples of companies that are actually manufacturing batteries and you dismiss that as theoretical. As for insights...was your claim that nobody knows what percentage of CO2 comes from fossil fuels one of those "insights"? What you call insights a rational observer would call "making things up" or maybe science fiction. 

Take a closer look at the prototype battery technology that you Googled, and then tell me how it solves the energy crisis that phasing out conventional electricity generation will cause. Real world please, no pie in the sky stuff. 

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, sidneybear said:

Take a closer look at the prototype battery technology that you Googled, and then tell me how it solves the energy crisis that phasing out conventional electricity generation will cause. Real world please, no pie in the sky stuff. 

The battery has passed its real world tests with flying colors. That's why a 765 million dollar plant is now in the final phase of construction.  This is a company who chief executive was in charge of battery development at Tesla. And it is not incumbent upon me to educate you. Why should I take hours or even days to paraphrase what is already on offer?  I offered you a link to a thorough explanation of how their conclusions were arrived at.  The simple takeaway is this: an M.I.T. study determined that to get to 100% renewables it would take a battery that costs $20 per kwh of capacity. To get to 95% renewables it would take a battery that costs $151 per kwh of capacity. At the time that article was written, even getting to $151 was considered to be improbable before the year 2030. Not only do lithium batteries now cost less than that, but at least one company has reached the $20 mark.

 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

The battery has passed its real world tests with flying colors. That's why a 765 million dollar plant is now in the final phase of construction.  This is a company who chief executive was in charge of battery development at Tesla. And it is not incumbent upon me to educate you. Why should I take hours or even days to paraphrase what is already on offer?  I offered you a link to a thorough explanation of how their conclusions were arrived at.  The simple takeaway is this: an M.I.T. study determined that to get to 100% renewables it would take a battery that costs $20 per kwh of capacity. To get to 95% renewables it would take a battery that costs $151 per kwh of capacity. At the time that article was written, even getting to $151 was considered to be improbable before the year 2030. Not only do lithium batteries now cost less than that, but at least one company has reached the $20 mark.

 

 

Initially, wind power was also considered unviable, but in the UK at least it is a major source of cheap power.

 

There is no doubt some other green energies will work.

 

(Sadly it is already too late to prevent catastrophic changes to the eco system. I'm not predicting the imminent demise of mankind, but I do think the next 100 years are going to be very tough for the human race, perhaps the excess death rate will be of biblical proportions albeit in slow motion.)

[Barnet1900]

22 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, this is an El Nino year was was last summer. Now that a La Nina is on the way, temperatures should be lower next year. But they're still most likely going to be hotter, on average, than they were, say 10 years ago. There's not much anyone can do to stop this rise of temperature. Even if the world  were to achieve net zero tomorrow, average temperatures would still go up for a while before the rise was stopped. And, of course, by itself, Thailand can't make a significant difference to the rate of global warming.

Thank you.

 

Makes perfect sense. As sad as it is to accept. I think you're right when you say that we can't stop the increase in temperature.

 

I just wonder that should a time come where we are faced with day after day of going to shopping malls and such, just to stay cool, if a large volume of tourists and expats call it a day here. Nearly everyone I speak to stays in during the daytime to avoid the blistering heat. It's only my humble opinion but I do believe that eventually nature will dramatically change the way we live. 

[mommysboy]

53 minutes ago, Barnet1900 said:

Thank you.

 

Makes perfect sense. As sad as it is to accept. I think you're right when you say that we can't stop the increase in temperature.

 

I just wonder that should a time come where we are faced with day after day of going to shopping malls and such, just to stay cool, if a large volume of tourists and expats call it a day here. Nearly everyone I speak to stays in during the daytime to avoid the blistering heat. It's only my humble opinion but I do believe that eventually nature will dramatically change the way we live. 

 

I speak often with a friend in Dubai, where they are shifting into summer mode. About now, the air temperature becomes comparable with Thailand. It's already considered too hot to do much.  Modern apartments have centrally controlled air con in all rooms 24 hours a day, as do most other public buildings. He's stopped his evening walk- too hot he says. Even now he doesn't spend much if anytime outside on work days and of course his car is also cooled.  Yes, shopping malls, cinemas, swimming pools are the places to be.  My friend comes from Southern India so he's used to hot and humid weather.  Although he likes Thailand, he says that he wouldn't come this time of the year because of the heat and humidity.  It's a snapshot of how city dwellers will be living in Thailand at least during the dry season imo. 

[RocketDog]

11 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Yes.

I know.

 

 

Please read the above, CAREFULLY.

 

"The pitch was most often used as a measurement of the size of typewriter fonts." 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(typewriter)#:~:text=Pitch is the number of,impact printers used with computers.

 

 

So what you quoted was written on a typewriter. I see.

[GammaGlobulin]

4 hours ago, RocketDog said:

So what you quoted was written on a typewriter. I see.

 

No. 

And, no you didn't read carefully. 

 

Have you ever worked in the publishing and printing industry? 

 

Read carefully, this time. 

 

 

[MarkBR]

On 5/6/2024 at 10:01 PM, placeholder said:

Well, this is an El Nino year was was last summer. Now that a La Nina is on the way, temperatures should be lower next year. But they're still most likely going to be hotter, on average, than they were, say 10 years ago. There's not much anyone can do to stop this rise of temperature. Even if the world  were to achieve net zero tomorrow, average temperatures would still go up for a while before the rise was stopped. And, of course, by itself, Thailand can't make a significant difference to the rate of global warming.

Timescale if we have no emissions is, at best with the most coservative estimate so far, about 3-5000 years to return to temperature regime that are reasonable.  Plenty of literature on the modelling is available for anyone to find.  The countries & regions that we need to convince to do things are Australia, China, Europe, India, USA; most of the others are irrelevant.

[MarkBR]

On 5/3/2024 at 11:14 AM, placeholder said:

But it's not only about temperature is it. What about the effect of burning fossil fuels on human health?

 

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide

 

The study shows that more than 8 million people around the globe die each year as a result of breathing in air containing particles from burning fuels like coal, petrol and diesel, which aggravate respiratory conditions like asthma and can lead to lung cancer, coronary heart disease, strokes and early death.

The research, led by Harvard University in collaboration with UCL, the University of Birmingham and the University of Leicester has been published in the journal Environmental Research.

Co-author and UCL Associate Professor Eloise Marais (UCL Geography) said: “Burning fossil fuels produces fine particles laden with toxins that are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs. The risks of inhaling these particles, known as PM_2.5, are well documented.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/feb/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-1-5-deaths-worldwide

pm2.5s also contribute to increased probabilities of suffering strokes, cardiac events, and psychoses.

[placeholder]

 

 

3 hours ago, MarkBR said:

Timescale if we have no emissions is, at best with the most coservative estimate so far, about 3-5000 years to return to temperature regime that are reasonable.  Plenty of literature on the modelling is available for anyone to find.  The countries & regions that we need to convince to do things are Australia, China, Europe, India, USA; most of the others are irrelevant.

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?

[Gknrd]

Funny, an ex long term GF of mine is begging me to come get her and take her out of Thailand. Or move back and take her to a better place in Thailand for some relief.  Had a video talk with her and she and the family were suffering from the heat and air pollution.  I feel for anyone stuck in that mess. I cannot think of a more horrible place to live.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, Gknrd said:

Funny, an ex long term GF of mine is begging me to come get her and take her out of Thailand. Or move back and take her to a better place in Thailand for some relief.  Had a video talk with her and she and the family were suffering from the heat and air pollution.  I feel for anyone stuck in that mess. I cannot think of a more horrible place to live.

 

Probably little financial prospects too.  So, are you going to help?

[Gknrd]

53 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Probably little financial prospects too.  So, are you going to help?

Yes mommysboy... hahaha. 

 

Anyone else noticing the Thai slopaganda machine working overtime these days.

[G_Money]

I blame El Niño, along with Al Gores and John Kerry’s  private Gulfstreams.

[sidneybear]

On 5/7/2024 at 11:19 AM, placeholder said:

The simple takeaway is this: an M.I.T. study determined that

More academic waffle, written in your usual patronising tone. None of these eggheads live in the real world, and they'll conclude whatever their donors tell them to conclude. Scientific research has been corrupted by politics and money. It isn't independent anymore. 

 

Explain to me, using your own analysis, how a $20 per kWh prototype battery technology will be scaled up to supply the entire electricity grid when windmills and solar panels aren't online. You'll need to include all the variables and constraints that I've asked you for earlier. It might not be incumbent on you to educate people, but it is incumbent on you to demonstrate insight and understanding of third party material that you post here. Otherwise stop posting links that you yourself don't understand. 

[sidneybear]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

The sense I get from the MIT article I've linked to is that it could take centurie

You get a "sense" that it "could take centuries". Pretty vague stuff that. Back in the 1970's, academic eggheads were screaming about an impending age. Prophecising doom must be a lucrative business. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, sidneybear said:

You get a "sense" that it "could take centuries". Pretty vague stuff that. Back in the 1970's, academic eggheads were screaming about an impending age. Prophecising doom must be a lucrative business. 

Actually, one of the falsehoods perpetrated by denialists such as yourself is that the scientific consensus was that the earth was cooling. Even back then, when climatology was in its infancy, that was a falsehood.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

The article goes on to say the 20 articles were neutral on the issue.

[sidneybear]

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, one of the falsehoods perpetrated by denialists such as yourself is that the scientific consensus was that the earth was cooling. Even back then, when climatology was in its infancy, that was a falsehood.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

The article goes on to say the 20 articles were neutral on the issue.

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. 

[sidneybear]

53 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

The article goes on to say ...

ABC is a lefty outfit that is supposed to be impartial. It's a bit like the BBC, or the Australian ABC: All it does is recite leftist nostrums like all this guff about changing the weather. People laugh at it.

 

We never did have that ice age that all those eggheads were shouting about, now did we? Next up, you'll be posting links to the Guardian.