5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Of course, you are in an entirely different gun culture. To the average Australian, 19 guns in a home is plain ridiculous. How many enemies do you think you have? You think an elephant is going to try to break in?

IIRC both British and American commanders regarded Australian soldiers quite highly, if lacking in formal discipline.

When the Australian Army led a UN peace-keeping force in East Timor, the Indonesian army learned quite quickly not to mess with them. IMO that stacks up pretty well against Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have guns, back home with my daughter until we move back, for hunting. Only 7. I've mostly used my bow and crossbow the last 10 years or so. I'll likely get a handgun for self defense as I did want to when I sold guns but never got around to it. I feel safe in the US, having never really seen any harsh violence in all the years I lived there, working in NYC, living close, and also close to San Antonio, Texas, but there are times when I would be in a bad area and would like a gun handy, hoping I would never need to brandish it.

I always knew the Aussies had their share of combat during the wars, and look to anyone helping the US or Nato as a neighbor. Actually have a few movies based on Aussie exploits during wartime. All countries have their share of good and bad, lunatics and heroes, and they all have to deal with them.

12 hours ago, Purdey said:

Why would you make this up when it is so easy to check?

The annual highest temperature in Thailand has increased by approximately 0.86°C over the past 55 years. In 1960, Bangkok had about 193 days at or above 32°C; by 2018, that number rose to 276 days, and it is projected to reach up to 344 days by 2100.

Never heard of the the urban heat island (UHI) effect?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02947-1

Well, you have now.

56 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I always knew the Aussies had their share of combat during the wars, and look to anyone helping the US or Nato as a neighbor. Actually have a few movies based on Aussie exploits during wartime. All countries have their share of good and bad, lunatics and heroes, and they all have to deal with them.

IMO you will find many Australians are re-evaluating their relationship with America, with the common factor being Trump.

Fact 1: The USA has a positive trade balance with Australia. Why does it need a tariff on our exports?

Fact 2: Our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ( PBS ) makes a host of medications affordable for Australians. Trump wants Big Pharma pricing, so we can share your misery.

Fact 3: Australia is buying secondhand Virginia-class submarines for $360 billion, which can be sunk by a $20,000 underwater drone. How many hospitals and schools will that buy?

Fact 4: Our export trade with China is worth 4 times what our trade with America is, with next to no tariffs.

Fact 5: The leader you elected in 2024 is about as reliable as a two-bob watch.

So excuse us for wondering if America is an ally worth having. It used to be, perhaps no longer.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMO you will find many Australians are re-evaluating their relationship with America, with the common factor being Trump.

Fact 1: The USA has a positive trade balance with Australia. Why does it need a tariff on our exports?

Fact 2: Our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ( PBS ) makes a host of medications affordable for Australians. Trump wants Big Pharma pricing, so we can share your misery.

Fact 3: Australia is buying secondhand Virginia-class submarines for $360 billion, which can be sunk by a $20,000 underwater drone. How many hospitals and schools will that buy?

Fact 4: Our export trade with China is worth 4 times what our trade with America is, with next to no tariffs.

Fact 5: The leader you elected in 2024 is about as reliable as a two-bob watch.

So excuse us for wondering if America is an ally worth having. It used to be, perhaps no longer.

You guys belong with China.

5 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Not sure what other countries are more sensible, but European countries are a lot smaller, with smaller roads, lesser populations and higher gas prices, which are usual reasons they buy smaller cars.

Americans use more trucks also, having huge country living areas, hunting, fishing, camping and more construction. Not as much about gas guzzling but necessary for those activities.

Limited parking spaces in many European towns also has their small choices a better idea. If you visit the US, you'll see huge parking lots and high rise parking, bigger malls and more sports complexes. More traveling in America by families from that much bigger population.

I've never seen nor heard of Americans panicking or paranoid, knowing thousands personally all my life, as all of us know we are a super power, and the rest of the world also knows this and needs us as much as we need them.

Asian countries follow suit. Smaller, more efficient cars from large populations, less money, and crowded conditions in the cities. Kei cars are popular in Japan, but they don't have the safety features larger vehicles do.

I myself had many vehicles, trucks after I started serious hunting at 25, and wouldn't trade them for a smaller version. I did have Toyota pickups and 4 -runners, but these aren't small, even though they did have 4 cylinder engines (about the best). Decent on gas, not guzzlers, although I did have a couple that were, American made. In reality, only people who live in America, or have for many years, really know all of what goes on there. Lots of videos, opinions, exaggerations, lies and opinions but reality is different.

Most European countries joined with the EU, so that the extra burden of government could guarantee poverty and ruin much faster.

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You guys belong with China.

We are paying too much for a security insurance policy from a company that might not pay out when we crash the car.

The probability of China actually invading Australia is extremely small, even the hawks admit that.

China is at war with America now. It's a trade war, and like Trump's first term, America is losing. Or I should say, the average American is.

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

We are paying too much for a security insurance policy from a company that might not pay out when we crash the car.

The probability of China actually invading Australia is extremely small, even the hawks admit that.

China is at war with America now. It's a trade war, and like Trump's first term, America is losing. Or I should say, the average American is.

Yeah, you need to get with them brother, they're commies, you'll fit right it,

39 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, you need to get with them brother, they're commies, you'll fit right it,

You may be right, China is way smarter than the US in terms of STEM Ph D's , and leads the world in high impact papers on physics and chemistry .

I have worked with both nationalities.

8 hours ago, Purdey said:

Well, you'll have to reveal which research said nothing has changed as I can't find it. It is not a fact without evidence.

Researchers have found that temperatures have increased in Thailand over the past half-century, though there is some variability in their assessments. Thailand's Department of Meteorology reported that the annual mean temperature in Thailand rose by one degree Celsius from 1981 to 2007. Another study found that average annual temperatures in Thailand increased by 0.95 °C between 1955 and 2009, more than the average world temperature increase of 0.69 °C. The annual highest temperature has increased by 0.86 °C and the annual lowest temperature has decreased by 1.45 °C over the past 55 years.

Climate change in Thailand - Wikipedia

Wiki is left wing and not reliable. 2023 was the same as 1998. Im in Bangkok now. Not hot at all. Co2 is only 8% of the greenhouse force in the tropics.

It is actually not possible for Bangkok to heat up much due to photons only being absorbed once. Water vapour is 90% of the greenhouse in humid climates.

In 300 years it won't be much different unless the sun cycles change.

The weakness of co2 is shown by desert nights which are cold. Co2 is 430ppm and water vapour is low minus temps. Bangkok is 26 at night due to water vapour not co2.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Never heard of the the urban heat island (UHI) effect?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02947-1

Well, you have now.

Yes urban heat effect is common in large cities. Go from 3m to 10m with more cars temps rise locally. Go outside the city they drop.

32 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You may be right, China is way smarter than the US in terms of STEM Ph D's , and leads the world in high impact papers on physics and chemistry .

I have worked with both nationalities.

I've worked in the US, China, Malaysboia, UAE Mexico, India, Taiwan, Japan and Thailand, and while I never worked in Australia, but a worked on a few Australian projects, and you are correct, the Chinese are the are the absolute smartest, most creative people in the world.

12 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Some science is backed by people looking for a profit, and much is done by scientists that actually want to prove theories and search for the truth, without a profit in mind.

A lot of what we hear daily, since the internet began, is opinions without scientific backing, or with a profit in mind, so it's always best to look at all of what's said, and where they get their information or evidence, then make your judgement.

There are also truths on both sides, like the marijuana thing. It's been proven to help in some ways but can also hurt in others. Running out of oil was a lie, based on profits. We waited on gas lines thinking there was a shortage, then later on there's a huge amount. All of a sudden they just find more? People died because of those gas lines.

In this topic's instance, there are people, scientists, that have been taking evidence and theories into account for decades, and seen the evidence for the warming, and it's happening a lot faster now than ever before. This will of course change things, and the possible damage to shoreline areas can be enormous, but will it make changes that will keep hurting the earth and are they irreversible? That we'll eventually find out.

There's no doubt of the damage fossil fuels do, and those finding alternatives are to be commended, as pollution itself can be largely reduced if the other means are put into effect a lot more than they are now.

As far as the above thoughts on polar bears. Losing their "homes", meaning a lot of the ice sheets, means they will encounter more humans. This means there will be more attacks and deaths, as polar bears look at anything that moves as food. This also means more will be shot instead of being left alone , which is another problem.

Warming has slowed since 2001. Once you account for the Urban Heat Effect very little warming at all. Population growth and cars heat cities. Go outside the cities its cooler. They put the recording devices in the cities to exaggerate the warming.

10 hours ago, Purdey said:

Well, you'll have to reveal which research said nothing has changed as I can't find it. It is not a fact without evidence.

Researchers have found that temperatures have increased in Thailand over the past half-century, though there is some variability in their assessments. Thailand's Department of Meteorology reported that the annual mean temperature in Thailand rose by one degree Celsius from 1981 to 2007. Another study found that average annual temperatures in Thailand increased by 0.95 °C between 1955 and 2009, more than the average world temperature increase of 0.69 °C. The annual highest temperature has increased by 0.86 °C and the annual lowest temperature has decreased by 1.45 °C over the past 55 years.

Climate change in Thailand - Wikipedia

Do you have eyesight issues? The red graph shows cooling since 2007, the bottom one since 1998.

Disappointing results for proponents of the theory that melting Antarctic glaciers could help slow climate change by boosting the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

For years, some scientists believed that as glaciers melt, they release iron trapped in ice into the Southern Ocean. This process, known as iron fertilisation, was thought to stimulate massive blooms of microscopic algae. Through photosynthesis, these algae can absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and, when they die, sink to the ocean floor—potentially locking away carbon for the long term.

The theory offered a rare “silver lining” to global warming. But a new study suggests the effect may be far smaller than expected.

Researchers from Rutgers University–New Brunswick, working with US and UK institutions, investigated meltwater from the Dotson Ice Shelf in the Amundsen Sea, West Antarctica, in 2022. The Amundsen Sea is a major contributor to Antarctic-driven sea level rise. Thwaites Glacier, often called the “Doomsday Glacier,” alone accounts for about 4% of global annual sea level rise. If it collapses entirely, sea levels could rise by 65cm.

Scientists estimate that each centimetre of sea level rise exposes around six million people to coastal flooding.

To measure iron levels, researchers sampled seawater flowing into and out of ice shelf cavities where meltwater mixes with ocean water. Laboratory analysis found that only about 10% of the dissolved iron in outflowing water came directly from meltwater. Around 62% originated from deep ocean water and 28% from shelf sediments.

The study, published in Communications Earth and Environment, also found a low-oxygen meltwater layer beneath the glacier, which may be a more significant iron source than the melting ice itself.

Lead researchers concluded that meltwater carries very little iron, undermining hopes that glacier melt could meaningfully reduce atmospheric CO2. More research is now needed to better understand Antarctica’s iron cycle in a warming climate.

Original source: https://www.independent.co.uk/

Key Takeaways

• New research challenges the idea that glacier melt boosts carbon absorption.

• Only 10% of dissolved iron near Antarctic ice shelves comes from meltwater.

• Thwaites Glacier remains a major driver of global sea level rise.

Could glacier melt slow climate change? Scientists thought so – until now

On 2/15/2026 at 9:22 PM, bannork said:

Scientists are warning

Forget the science, the Earth's population will end due to RELIGION

1 hour ago, bannork said:

Disappointing results for proponents of the theory that melting Antarctic glaciers could help slow climate change by boosting the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

For years, some scientists believed that as glaciers melt, they release iron trapped in ice into the Southern Ocean. This process, known as iron fertilisation, was thought to stimulate massive blooms of microscopic algae. Through photosynthesis, these algae can absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and, when they die, sink to the ocean floor—potentially locking away carbon for the long term.

The theory offered a rare “silver lining” to global warming. But a new study suggests the effect may be far smaller than expected.

Researchers from Rutgers University–New Brunswick, working with US and UK institutions, investigated meltwater from the Dotson Ice Shelf in the Amundsen Sea, West Antarctica, in 2022. The Amundsen Sea is a major contributor to Antarctic-driven sea level rise. Thwaites Glacier, often called the “Doomsday Glacier,” alone accounts for about 4% of global annual sea level rise. If it collapses entirely, sea levels could rise by 65cm.

Scientists estimate that each centimetre of sea level rise exposes around six million people to coastal flooding.

To measure iron levels, researchers sampled seawater flowing into and out of ice shelf cavities where meltwater mixes with ocean water. Laboratory analysis found that only about 10% of the dissolved iron in outflowing water came directly from meltwater. Around 62% originated from deep ocean water and 28% from shelf sediments.

The study, published in Communications Earth and Environment, also found a low-oxygen meltwater layer beneath the glacier, which may be a more significant iron source than the melting ice itself.

Lead researchers concluded that meltwater carries very little iron, undermining hopes that glacier melt could meaningfully reduce atmospheric CO2. More research is now needed to better understand Antarctica’s iron cycle in a warming climate.

Original source: https://www.independent.co.uk/

Key Takeaways

• New research challenges the idea that glacier melt boosts carbon absorption.

• Only 10% of dissolved iron near Antarctic ice shelves comes from meltwater.

• Thwaites Glacier remains a major driver of global sea level rise.

Could glacier melt slow climate change? Scientists thought so – until now

Co2 is very low. It should be 700ppm or so

1 hour ago, bannork said:

Disappointing results for proponents of the theory that melting Antarctic glaciers could help slow climate change by boosting the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

For years, some scientists believed that as glaciers melt, they release iron trapped in ice into the Southern Ocean. This process, known as iron fertilisation, was thought to stimulate massive blooms of microscopic algae. Through photosynthesis, these algae can absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and, when they die, sink to the ocean floor—potentially locking away carbon for the long term.

The theory offered a rare “silver lining” to global warming. But a new study suggests the effect may be far smaller than expected.

Researchers from Rutgers University–New Brunswick, working with US and UK institutions, investigated meltwater from the Dotson Ice Shelf in the Amundsen Sea, West Antarctica, in 2022. The Amundsen Sea is a major contributor to Antarctic-driven sea level rise. Thwaites Glacier, often called the “Doomsday Glacier,” alone accounts for about 4% of global annual sea level rise. If it collapses entirely, sea levels could rise by 65cm.

Scientists estimate that each centimetre of sea level rise exposes around six million people to coastal flooding.

To measure iron levels, researchers sampled seawater flowing into and out of ice shelf cavities where meltwater mixes with ocean water. Laboratory analysis found that only about 10% of the dissolved iron in outflowing water came directly from meltwater. Around 62% originated from deep ocean water and 28% from shelf sediments.

The study, published in Communications Earth and Environment, also found a low-oxygen meltwater layer beneath the glacier, which may be a more significant iron source than the melting ice itself.

Lead researchers concluded that meltwater carries very little iron, undermining hopes that glacier melt could meaningfully reduce atmospheric CO2. More research is now needed to better understand Antarctica’s iron cycle in a warming climate.

Original source: https://www.independent.co.uk/

Key Takeaways

• New research challenges the idea that glacier melt boosts carbon absorption.

• Only 10% of dissolved iron near Antarctic ice shelves comes from meltwater.

• Thwaites Glacier remains a major driver of global sea level rise.

Could glacier melt slow climate change? Scientists thought so – until now

38 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Forget the science, the Earth's population will end due to RELIGION

Humans will be here in 1000 years. Violence is going down.

4 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Humans will be here in 1000 years. Violence is going down.

I'd like to have whatever you are smoking.

1 minute ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

I'd like to have whatever you are smoking.

Humans in 5000 bc thought the world would end soon. They would have had climate change quacks too. Every big storm the world was ending.

32 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Humans in 5000 bc thought the world would end soon. They would have had climate change quacks too. Every big storm the world was ending.

I'm guessing you had conversations with them, or is this yet another assumption like most in this topic from you? If the population increases as it is, the world will run out of food in less than 150 years. More than 10% of the population now is already malnourished or starving. The warming that's going on will damage a lot of the ecosystem which can't afford it now. Adopting the new methods of power on a much larger scale along with a decreasing population or at best zero growth, together with harsher fines for ocean and food waste and rotating farming practices done world wide is the only way it will be enough to sustain. This explains a lot about what's going on..........https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140920-population-11billion-demographics-anthropocene

51 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

I'd like to have whatever you are smoking.

The 1000 years is a prediction but the violence part is fact.

Smoke it up smokey.

10 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I'm guessing you had conversations with them, or is this yet another assumption like most in this topic from you? If the population increases as it is, the world will run out of food in less than 150 years. More than 10% of the population now is already malnourished or starving. The warming that's going on will damage a lot of the ecosystem which can't afford it now. Adopting the new methods of power on a much larger scale along with a decreasing population or at best zero growth, together with harsher fines for ocean and food waste and rotating farming practices done world wide is the only way it will be enough to sustain. This explains a lot about what's going on..........https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140920-population-11billion-demographics-anthropocene

Plants prefer 700 to 800ppm co2. They also prefer warmer climates as frost kills more crops.

Rice is a tropical heat-seeker that performs best when temperatures stay between 20°C and 35°C (68°F – 95°F) throughout its life cycle [FAO].

Temperature Sweet Spots

• Germination: Needs a minimum of 10°C (50°F) to start, but the "fast track" happens at 30°C (86°F

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Plants prefer 700 to 800ppm co2. They also prefer warmer climates as frost kills more crops.

Yes, we know. AI gives you a lot of information at your fingertips you didn't already know. It isn't about plants but warmer temperatures which will damage a lot of what's growing, along with changing the climate around the world. Heat damages crops also, as has been seen with droughts. Of course tropical areas will stay much the same but the temperate and frozen zones won't.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

Yes, we know. AI gives you a lot of information at your fingertips you didn't already know. It isn't about plants but warmer temperatures which will damage a lot of what's growing, along with changing the climate around the world. Heat damages crops also, as has been seen with droughts. Of course tropical areas will stay much the same but the temperate and frozen zones won't.

Peanuts thrive in warm climates with ideal growing temperatures between 86°F and 93°F (–), requiring soil temperatures above 65°F () for germination. They need a long, frost-free growing season (100–140 days) with warm days and mild nights, as temperatures below 65°F can halt development. 

Rice is a tropical heat-seeker that performs best when temperatures stay between 20°C and 35°C (68°F – 95°F) throughout its life cycle [FAO].

Temperature Sweet Spots

• Germination: Needs a minimum of 10°C (50°F) to start, but the "fast track" happens at 30°C (86°F

3 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Peanuts thrive in warm climates with ideal growing temperatures between 86°F and 93°F (–), requiring soil temperatures above 65°F () for germination. They need a long, frost-free growing season (100–140 days) with warm days and mild nights, as temperatures below 65°F can halt development. 

Rice is a tropical heat-seeker that performs best when temperatures stay between 20°C and 35°C (68°F – 95°F) throughout its life cycle [FAO].

Temperature Sweet Spots

• Germination: Needs a minimum of 10°C (50°F) to start, but the "fast track" happens at 30°C (86°F

Again, posting things we already know or can find in a few seconds isn't related to this topic.

5 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Yes, we know. AI gives you a lot of information at your fingertips you didn't already know. It isn't about plants but warmer temperatures which will damage a lot of what's growing, along with changing the climate around the world. Heat damages crops also, as has been seen with droughts. Of course tropical areas will stay much the same but the temperate and frozen zones won't.

The cold areas are often to cold to grow crops. Many areas are below zero at night and below 15 during the day.

The planet is too cold to sustain 10bn people.

Just now, fredwiggy said:

Again, posting things we already know or can find in a few seconds isn't related to this topic.

Your posts are really dumb though.

1 minute ago, khaosokman said:

Your posts are really dumb though.

No, my posts are from personal experience or facts. Yours are those you looked up on AI just to argue. There's quite a difference in actually having knowledge on a subject and quickly searching on the internet just to try and disprove. Opinions mean nothing, and your actions remain the same, so I won't answer more. It might be better if you read what other's post instead of looking to make a comeback for your usual reasons. Changing names isn't changing behavior.

Climate Change and Civilizational Decline: Around 5,000 to 4,000 years ago (which is slightly after 5000 BC), Africa and Asia experienced a mega-drought that turned the Green Sahara into a desert, disrupted monsoons, and caused the collapse of early civilizations, such as the Akkadian Empire and Indus Valley Civilization. These events likely caused severe, lifethreatening, and potentially "end-of-world" experiences for those involved

Oh no, it means more "pandemics" and STDs. Bill Gates has been warning us...