Thailand must take climate threat seriously: experts

[rickirs]

Thailand's action plan to show the world it takes climate change threat seriously: put it on a government agenda and run some public relation ads. And if anyone critisizes Thailand for the lack of a serious plan, sue them for libel and defamation.

[halloween]

I think America should lead by example here, and take climate threat seriously before Thailand does. How many people in America are convinced that burning coal is NOT what's causing global warming ? And how many people are convinced that global warming is not happening at all ?

And Australia, tell your coal companies to stop exporting the stuff, coal is slowly killing everybody. Australia, you export more coal than any other nation on planet earth.

And while oz has coal to last millennia, we are building solar power stations that will produce very little, very very expensively, at its own convenience. That is not only hypocrisy, it is bloody stupid.

But what people believe has little relation to truth. Larger percentages of the world population believed the earth was flat, and that the sun rotated around it, because thety were told that by "experts."

[VincentRJ]

If the pollution attributed to Global Warming were an elephant, Thailand would be the equivalent of a few nostril hairs. China, alone, will add the equivalent of one new 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant every 10 days for the next ten years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

Thailand is not the problem.

BTW, we are all doomed already, by overpopulation.

The last sentence of that article on China's increasing use of coal, says it all.

With the current coal trajectory of China, all the windmills in the world won’t deliver our children a climate they can depend on.

It seems that someone is of the impression that our climate would be benign and stable were it not for CO2 emissions.

The main problem with coal-fired power stations in China is the pollution they emit. By pollution I mean sulphur and nitrous oxides, and fine particles of carbon; not CO2 which is a clear, odourless gas, essential for all life.

I sure hope these new coal power stations that China is building have adequate emission controls. The Ultra Supercritical variety have the lowest emissions and are the most efficient.

[airconsult]

If the pollution attributed to Global Warming were an elephant, Thailand would be the equivalent of a few nostril hairs. China, alone, will add the equivalent of one new 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant every 10 days for the next ten years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

Thailand is not the problem.

BTW, we are all doomed already, by overpopulation.

The last sentence of that article on China's increasing use of coal, says it all.

With the current coal trajectory of China, all the windmills in the world won’t deliver our children a climate they can depend on.

It seems that someone is of the impression that our climate would be benign and stable were it not for CO2 emissions.

The main problem with coal-fired power stations in China is the pollution they emit. By pollution I mean sulphur and nitrous oxides, and fine particles of carbon; not CO2 which is a clear, odourless gas, essential for all life.

I sure hope these new coal power stations that China is building have adequate emission controls. The Ultra Supercritical variety have the lowest emissions and are the most efficient.

It's interesting to note too that about 12 years ago an australian company wished to sell/build the latest clean coal-fired generators to India.

That sale was stopped by the US invoking treaty clauses with Australia as they regarded it as an advanced technology with defence implications - never quite understood their reasoning there, unless they were trying to sell nuclear plants to india at the time?

I have no doubt that the new Chinese plants (while they may not be the Supercritical variety - there's still not a running commercial one I believe) will be the current generation of clean coal - just like Germany is building. Actually they may be cleaner than Germany's as they insist on using predominately brown coal, whereas China imports a considerable quantity of black coal.

EDIT - additional.

You might also have pointed out that most plant life evolved for a much higher concentration of CO2 - about 1,200ppm - at 400 the poor things are still deprived and I believe die below 223ppm? (not sure about the absolute lower level right now).

Cheers

Edited September 10, 2014 by airconsult

[connda]

Beware of the Maunder Minimum.

[ResandePohm]

The climatologists warned us that rising atmospheric CO2 levels would result in global warming? Global warming! Remember the days of their innocence when they called it that?

Well of course we now have the data. Yes, CO2 levels are rising and rapidly; they just breached 400 parts per million. Yet average atmospheric temperatures globally have, if anything, cooled in these last 20 years.

So how have the climatologists reacted? By changing the name of their movement for one, to "climate change." That alone should give us pause. But it gets better.

Now they claim that the earth has been getting warmer, not in the air but in the deepest oceans, and there is some evidence of this. What they wont tell you is that there is still no proven anthropomorphic link, no proof that man made CO2 is the culprit of any deep ocean warming.

Moreover, they miss the point that if the deepest oceans are indeed a natural heat sink, absorbing heat from the atmosphere and thus keeping the latter's temperature stable that otherwise would be rising in the face of rising atmospheric CO2, that itself is an arrow pointed directly at the hearts of the climatologists.

For at the heart of their argument was--as with all left wing argument--victimology. The Earth was as much a victim of homo economicus, on their insistence, as any noble savage. Yet it now turns out, on the climatologists own arguments, the earth is very much capable of defending itself.

Yes, changing sea temperatures could indeed be contributing to climate change. But climate change is not global warming. One area becomes cooler, another warmer; that is very different from a relentless progression to a scorched earth and waves lapping at what are now mountaintops.

So what if we have climate change; it would be far more shocking if we did not have climate change. Climate change has occured always and everywhere throughout all known time. It is part and parcel of the earth itself.

Seven years ago Al Gore predicted that by this summer Arctic ice would all have melted. Instead, it is rebuilding.

Seven years from now Al Gore and his merry band of climatologists will themselves have melted away.

What you have written here is unsubstantiated hogwash. You are in denial and you are burying your head in the sand. The Arctic ice is rebuilding - please check your facts. The NW passage is now open every year and the Canadians are trying to ensure their rights over it. You write as if climate change is only natural and has little consequence for mankind. You are living in a dream world. I would guess you are American and still under the believe that burning fossil fuels has no effect on global warming. Your argument here is complete dribble.

[airconsult]

The climatologists warned us that rising atmospheric CO2 levels would result in global warming? Global warming! Remember the days of their innocence when they called it that?

Well of course we now have the data. Yes, CO2 levels are rising and rapidly; they just breached 400 parts per million. Yet average atmospheric temperatures globally have, if anything, cooled in these last 20 years.

So how have the climatologists reacted? By changing the name of their movement for one, to "climate change." That alone should give us pause. But it gets better.

Now they claim that the earth has been getting warmer, not in the air but in the deepest oceans, and there is some evidence of this. What they wont tell you is that there is still no proven anthropomorphic link, no proof that man made CO2 is the culprit of any deep ocean warming.

Moreover, they miss the point that if the deepest oceans are indeed a natural heat sink, absorbing heat from the atmosphere and thus keeping the latter's temperature stable that otherwise would be rising in the face of rising atmospheric CO2, that itself is an arrow pointed directly at the hearts of the climatologists.

For at the heart of their argument was--as with all left wing argument--victimology. The Earth was as much a victim of homo economicus, on their insistence, as any noble savage. Yet it now turns out, on the climatologists own arguments, the earth is very much capable of defending itself.

Yes, changing sea temperatures could indeed be contributing to climate change. But climate change is not global warming. One area becomes cooler, another warmer; that is very different from a relentless progression to a scorched earth and waves lapping at what are now mountaintops.

So what if we have climate change; it would be far more shocking if we did not have climate change. Climate change has occured always and everywhere throughout all known time. It is part and parcel of the earth itself.

Seven years ago Al Gore predicted that by this summer Arctic ice would all have melted. Instead, it is rebuilding.

Seven years from now Al Gore and his merry band of climatologists will themselves have melted away.

What you have written here is unsubstantiated hogwash. You are in denial and you are burying your head in the sand. The Arctic ice is rebuilding - please check your facts. The NW passage is now open every year and the Canadians are trying to ensure their rights over it. You write as if climate change is only natural and has little consequence for mankind. You are living in a dream world. I would guess you are American and still under the believe that burning fossil fuels has no effect on global warming. Your argument here is complete dribble.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic (the red line is this year, last date taken 8th September)

EDIT - that's 2 million sq km more than 2012- I think the op had a point about Al's prediction.

Edited September 10, 2014 by airconsult

[Thaiready]

I think America should lead by example here, and take climate threat seriously before Thailand does. How many people in America are convinced that burning coal is NOT what's causing global warming ? And how many people are convinced that global warming is not happening at all ?

And Australia, tell your coal companies to stop exporting the stuff, coal is slowly killing everybody. Australia, you export more coal than any other nation on planet earth.

its called "WEATHER"............so your gonna blame burning coal on the last ICE AGE.

No I am not.

I'm gonna blame burning coal for PREVENTING the next ICE AGE.

And I'll be looking forward to that cooling period here in Thailand.....sorry ICE AGE....555

[Thaiready]

The climatologists warned us that rising atmospheric CO2 levels would result in global warming? Global warming! Remember the days of their innocence when they called it that?

Well of course we now have the data. Yes, CO2 levels are rising and rapidly; they just breached 400 parts per million. Yet average atmospheric temperatures globally have, if anything, cooled in these last 20 years.

So how have the climatologists reacted? By changing the name of their movement for one, to "climate change." That alone should give us pause. But it gets better.

Now they claim that the earth has been getting warmer, not in the air but in the deepest oceans, and there is some evidence of this. What they wont tell you is that there is still no proven anthropomorphic link, no proof that man made CO2 is the culprit of any deep ocean warming.

Moreover, they miss the point that if the deepest oceans are indeed a natural heat sink, absorbing heat from the atmosphere and thus keeping the latter's temperature stable that otherwise would be rising in the face of rising atmospheric CO2, that itself is an arrow pointed directly at the hearts of the climatologists.

For at the heart of their argument was--as with all left wing argument--victimology. The Earth was as much a victim of homo economicus, on their insistence, as any noble savage. Yet it now turns out, on the climatologists own arguments, the earth is very much capable of defending itself.

Yes, changing sea temperatures could indeed be contributing to climate change. But climate change is not global warming. One area becomes cooler, another warmer; that is very different from a relentless progression to a scorched earth and waves lapping at what are now mountaintops.

So what if we have climate change; it would be far more shocking if we did not have climate change. Climate change has occured always and everywhere throughout all known time. It is part and parcel of the earth itself.

Seven years ago Al Gore predicted that by this summer Arctic ice would all have melted. Instead, it is rebuilding.

Seven years from now Al Gore and his merry band of climatologists will themselves have melted away.

Well said.....but these folks educated at GORE THE WHORE TECH will disagree.......ask me why I call him Gore the Whore

[Tongdee]

If the pollution attributed to Global Warming were an elephant, Thailand would be the equivalent of a few nostril hairs. China, alone, will add the equivalent of one new 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant every 10 days for the next ten years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

Thailand is not the problem.

BTW, we are all doomed already, by overpopulation.

rametindallas, you've got to bear in mind that a fair amount of the coal being burnt in China is exported their by Australia and America. Basically, America tries to look good by saying it is burning less coal (well, less of the most polluting types of coal), but it is actually exporting a lot to China.

Also, trees in Russia are being chopped down to sell as timber to China, but Chinese factories are exporting the finished wood product (chairs, tables, beds, other furniture) to America. Basically, Walmart is probably just as responsible for the number of trees chopped as the whole of Thailand !

And all those coal fired power stations in China, I think the Chinese are using the electricity to power the factories that produce cheap goods for America and Europe. Whether coal is burnt in America, Europe, or China, it's the same thing.

[Tongdee]

Tonbrigebrit you have a correct take on the blame game. Everyone involved in exporting, importing, burning, transporting. wholesale, retail of products created by the use of dirty coal tecnology shares in the blame for climatic degredation. Most of them shuffle the blame off on someone else as well. Unfortunatly I cant see anything changing anytime real soon. The people currently in charge of running the world dont care about much besides there own bank accounts. All we, the little people can do is attempt to contribute as little as we can to the problem and share the knowledge about little things we can do for mother earth...

Tongdee

[Robby nz]

Thai's are not interested....there's no money in it !

There have been and still are billions of $$$$ being made from it.

Ask Al Gore how much he has made.

[airconsult]

Tonbrigebrit you have a correct take on the blame game. Everyone involved in exporting, importing, burning, transporting. wholesale, retail of products created by the use of dirty coal tecnology shares in the blame for climatic degredation. Most of them shuffle the blame off on someone else as well. Unfortunatly I cant see anything changing anytime real soon. The people currently in charge of running the world dont care about much besides there own bank accounts. All we, the little people can do is attempt to contribute as little as we can to the problem and share the knowledge about little things we can do for mother earth...

Tongdee

Click on the picture to see what coal did in the last 24 hours. FYI it's 3,600MW of Thailand's power as well. (More than Hydro at 3,400MW)

Edited September 10, 2014 by airconsult

[rametindallas]

The climatologists warned us that rising atmospheric CO2 levels would result in global warming? Global warming! Remember the days of their innocence when they called it that?

Well of course we now have the data. Yes, CO2 levels are rising and rapidly; they just breached 400 parts per million. Yet average atmospheric temperatures globally have, if anything, cooled in these last 20 years.

So how have the climatologists reacted? By changing the name of their movement for one, to "climate change." That alone should give us pause. But it gets better.

Now they claim that the earth has been getting warmer, not in the air but in the deepest oceans, and there is some evidence of this. What they wont tell you is that there is still no proven anthropomorphic link, no proof that man made CO2 is the culprit of any deep ocean warming.

Moreover, they miss the point that if the deepest oceans are indeed a natural heat sink, absorbing heat from the atmosphere and thus keeping the latter's temperature stable that otherwise would be rising in the face of rising atmospheric CO2, that itself is an arrow pointed directly at the hearts of the climatologists.

For at the heart of their argument was--as with all left wing argument--victimology. The Earth was as much a victim of homo economicus, on their insistence, as any noble savage. Yet it now turns out, on the climatologists own arguments, the earth is very much capable of defending itself.

Yes, changing sea temperatures could indeed be contributing to climate change. But climate change is not global warming. One area becomes cooler, another warmer; that is very different from a relentless progression to a scorched earth and waves lapping at what are now mountaintops.

So what if we have climate change; it would be far more shocking if we did not have climate change. Climate change has occured always and everywhere throughout all known time. It is part and parcel of the earth itself.

Seven years ago Al Gore predicted that by this summer Arctic ice would all have melted. Instead, it is rebuilding.

Seven years from now Al Gore and his merry band of climatologists will themselves have melted away.

What you have written here is unsubstantiated hogwash. You are in denial and you are burying your head in the sand. The Arctic ice is rebuilding - please check your facts. The NW passage is now open every year and the Canadians are trying to ensure their rights over it. You write as if climate change is only natural and has little consequence for mankind. You are living in a dream world. I would guess you are American and still under the believe that burning fossil fuels has no effect on global warming. Your argument here is complete dribble.

Who are you going to believe? Al Gore or your lying eyes?

Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

Open your eyes and realize the AGW SCAM that's been perpetrated on the world!

Updated list of 38 ‘excuses’ for the nearly 18 year temperature ‘pause’ or standstill in global warming

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08/21/the-hockey-schtick-updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-the-18-year-pause-in-global-warming/

Want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? I'll sell it to you cheap. Trust me. I invented the Internet.

[FM505]

Capital 'B'... Capital 'S'