Thirty years ago it was due to bad drainage, this time the water will be coming from the other direction!
Bangkoks enviromental problems are compounded by the fact that the city is sinking as well due to over development and ground water extraction.
Global Warming 2
Re: Global Warming 2
A certain poster posted
I have spent a lot of time researching and have found sites uninfected with the circle dances being carried out by both sides of the GW CC debate.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Shows a chart of the climate for the world
If one googles the Milankovitch cycles you will find that the earth orbits the sun elliptically, this means that when the earth is at its furthest point from the sun it is at its coldest and at its hottest when it’s nearer. It takes one year to orbit the sun in this ellipse this gives us our seasons
However this elliptical orbit changes to being a circular orbit over 100,000 years the circular orbit being the periods when the earth has been at its hottest and when at the full extent of its elliptical orbit the coldest
The chart in the link shows the coldest it’s been is 10degrees c average the hottest 25 degrees c average to achieve these maximum highs and lows the axis cycle 100,000 years and the northern wobble must be equally aligned
The chart also shows in my estimate that at least 65% of the earths history has been up at 25 degrees and the cold periods are very short and changes up and down have been pretty damn rapid.
When in a circular orbit there are no seasons and the temp remains constant plus MAN has never been around when the earth is in its circular orbit ie.25 degrees C
The chart shows the earth has just (1850ad ish) reached a point in the cycle that it was at its furthest point from the sun this would equate to an average world temp of 10 degrees centigrade in many, many years time from now the aver temp will be 25 degrees cent and there is buggerall man can do to stop it
IF man made CO2 is effecting or going to affect it, it will only be to speed the warming process up (that is a possibility but as yet to unproven but May in the future it could possibly add degrees to the 25 degrees already guaranteed)
No matter what man can try to do, at best they can restrict the warming to what it would have been anyway.
To those that say it is purely cyclical look at the temps since the Tertiary period to date and then compare them to the preceding millennia (I am not saying they are different because of man) but the Jurassic period spawned many and much animal and plant life that wasn’t around before. The ice age killed of a lot of life but since the ice age after the Jurassic period life has exploded so to speak. I can see from that an argument that life, plant, mammal, reptile bird and man combined has had an effect. And if any affect it was to slow the cooling
The average temp for Australia has increased every decade for the last 70 years and the chart shows the rest of the world is the same
Tectonic plate movement volcanic activity earthquakes may have some small effect on temps but they will only be temporary at best. What they will do with certainty is change the climate as continents move see final link
Krakatoa 1883 only reduced the temp by 1.2 degrees and the Toba incident 70,000 years ago by 3-5 degrees but both only for 50 to 100 years
With all this research of mine and that includes gamma rays, infra red, micro waves, Dark age, industrial revolution, earths cores, mantle crust, charcoal dating, tree ring dating, glaciations, population, methane, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, limnic eruptions, sunspot activity, sunspot cycle (10 years by the way) dinosaur extinction, comets, ice age and a huge amount of time my conclusion is still the same
Those that have been screaming I am lazy and wont reply to my posts certainly have NOT done any research themselves and the reason they wont answer is because they have virtually no idea of the complexity of the subject
the highlights in red are for clarification
I see no answer I find that to be frustrating and infuriating when he does it to me but being a good mannered gentleman (except when insulted) i will answer with a precis of something i posted before maybe he will read it this time.Then explain the claim that temperatures "were higher than today by at least 12.5 F° for most of the past 550 million years"
I have spent a lot of time researching and have found sites uninfected with the circle dances being carried out by both sides of the GW CC debate.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Shows a chart of the climate for the world
If one googles the Milankovitch cycles you will find that the earth orbits the sun elliptically, this means that when the earth is at its furthest point from the sun it is at its coldest and at its hottest when it’s nearer. It takes one year to orbit the sun in this ellipse this gives us our seasons
However this elliptical orbit changes to being a circular orbit over 100,000 years the circular orbit being the periods when the earth has been at its hottest and when at the full extent of its elliptical orbit the coldest
The chart in the link shows the coldest it’s been is 10degrees c average the hottest 25 degrees c average to achieve these maximum highs and lows the axis cycle 100,000 years and the northern wobble must be equally aligned
The chart also shows in my estimate that at least 65% of the earths history has been up at 25 degrees and the cold periods are very short and changes up and down have been pretty damn rapid.
When in a circular orbit there are no seasons and the temp remains constant plus MAN has never been around when the earth is in its circular orbit ie.25 degrees C
The chart shows the earth has just (1850ad ish) reached a point in the cycle that it was at its furthest point from the sun this would equate to an average world temp of 10 degrees centigrade in many, many years time from now the aver temp will be 25 degrees cent and there is buggerall man can do to stop it
IF man made CO2 is effecting or going to affect it, it will only be to speed the warming process up (that is a possibility but as yet to unproven but May in the future it could possibly add degrees to the 25 degrees already guaranteed)
No matter what man can try to do, at best they can restrict the warming to what it would have been anyway.
To those that say it is purely cyclical look at the temps since the Tertiary period to date and then compare them to the preceding millennia (I am not saying they are different because of man) but the Jurassic period spawned many and much animal and plant life that wasn’t around before. The ice age killed of a lot of life but since the ice age after the Jurassic period life has exploded so to speak. I can see from that an argument that life, plant, mammal, reptile bird and man combined has had an effect. And if any affect it was to slow the cooling
The average temp for Australia has increased every decade for the last 70 years and the chart shows the rest of the world is the same
Tectonic plate movement volcanic activity earthquakes may have some small effect on temps but they will only be temporary at best. What they will do with certainty is change the climate as continents move see final link
Krakatoa 1883 only reduced the temp by 1.2 degrees and the Toba incident 70,000 years ago by 3-5 degrees but both only for 50 to 100 years
With all this research of mine and that includes gamma rays, infra red, micro waves, Dark age, industrial revolution, earths cores, mantle crust, charcoal dating, tree ring dating, glaciations, population, methane, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, limnic eruptions, sunspot activity, sunspot cycle (10 years by the way) dinosaur extinction, comets, ice age and a huge amount of time my conclusion is still the same
Those that have been screaming I am lazy and wont reply to my posts certainly have NOT done any research themselves and the reason they wont answer is because they have virtually no idea of the complexity of the subject
the highlights in red are for clarification
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand
Re: Global Warming 2
That's a pretty meaningless exercise as during 'most' of the last 550 million years the world had a very different atmosphere to that it has now.Then explain the claim that temperatures "were higher than today by at least 12.5 F° for most of the past 550 million years"
In fact the world has probably only been habitable at all for humanoids over the past 25 million years, so there isn't much point in going back further.
Re: Global Warming 2
Steve G wrote
which is probably why most CC GW denyers dont care about the future warming or CO2 i dont think Amoeba's care to much
I totaly agree Global warming is about now and the FUTURE going back to when the first Amoeba was formed is pointless after all they formed when the temperatures were really really hot and carbon dioxide was the prevelant gasIn fact the world has probably only been habitable at all for humanoids over the past 25 million years, so there isn't much point in going back further.
which is probably why most CC GW denyers dont care about the future warming or CO2 i dont think Amoeba's care to much
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand
Re: Global Warming 2
What is interesting is that whilst many in the West are busy arguing about whether we need to worry about global warming and moving away from fossil fuels, China is now the biggest investor in alternative energy in the world.
Indications are that electric vehicles are on the verge of becoming viable alternatives to gasoline powered ones and when that happens there will be a huge boom in the industry, which the way things are going, will happen in China and not the West.
They're also now the biggest producer of electric solar panels in the world.
Indications are that electric vehicles are on the verge of becoming viable alternatives to gasoline powered ones and when that happens there will be a huge boom in the industry, which the way things are going, will happen in China and not the West.
They're also now the biggest producer of electric solar panels in the world.
-
redzonerocker
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:55 pm
- Location: England
Re: Global Warming 2
china, is that that country out east under that huge cloud of smog, where the air is so polluted they have to wear masks ??STEVE G wrote:What is interesting is that whilst many in the West are busy arguing about whether we need to worry about global warming and moving away from fossil fuels, China is now the biggest investor in alternative energy in the world.
Indications are that electric vehicles are on the verge of becoming viable alternatives to gasoline powered ones and when that happens there will be a huge boom in the industry, which the way things are going, will happen in China and not the West.
They're also now the biggest producer of electric solar panels in the world.
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
-
sandman67
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4398
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:11 pm
- Location: I thought you had the map?
Re: Global Warming 2
truly the world is, as David Lynch so rightly said, wild at heart and weird on top....
today I am introduced to a whole new concept
sharing a common position with OSAMA BIN LADEN
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... ate-change
mind you....hes still a c**t
today I am introduced to a whole new concept
sharing a common position with OSAMA BIN LADEN
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... ate-change
mind you....hes still a c**t
"Science flew men to the moon. Religion flew men into buildings."
"To sin by silence makes cowards of men."
"To sin by silence makes cowards of men."
Re: Global Warming 2
He probably thought it was all a scam designed by the great Satan up until the point where he got flooded out of his cave in Pakistan!
Re: Global Warming 2
Finally someone is getting to the point. 
It would also help solve many other problems besides GW. Pete
Will birth control solve climate change?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2010-10-11
By David Biello Oct 11, 2010 04:01 PM 2
An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach 9 billion by 2050. Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis—the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.
"Demography will matter to greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years," said earth systems scientist Brian O'Neill of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, lead author of the analysis, in a statement. "If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution."
O'Neill and his colleagues paired data from national household surveys in 34 countries with a new economic model—the Population Environment and Technology (PET) model—to estimate the impact of various population growth scenarios on greenhouse gas emissions. The model also took into account changes in the makeup of that overall population, based on United Nations data, such as the aging population of Europe as well as the rapidly urbanizing one of India.
That urban growth—roughly half of humanity already lives in cities for the first time in recorded history—may lead to a big increase in greenhouse gas emissions. As urban residents enter the middle class, particularly in China and India, they increase their consumption of energy and transportation. "Urban living can be more energy efficient," the authors write in the analysis published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on October 11, but increased income results in "increased emissions."
At the same time, the mellowing that comes with age in industrialized countries could cut emissions from countries such as those in the E.U. by as much as 20 percent. At least that's true if present retirement ages and the like remain the same; "if retirement is postponed," the scientists note, "the emissions-reducing effect of aging that we find here will be lessened."
Overall, curbing population growth could reduce greenhouse gas emissions; reducing peak population to roughly 8 billion, for example, could save 29 percent of expected greenhouse gas emissions. Economic growth seems like one way to accomplish that, considering that rising wealth has historically slowed birth rates. But O'Neill and his colleagues warn that, if fewer but richer people consume more—as current consumption patterns in places like the U.S. suggest—those greenhouse gas savings become increased emissions.
Ultimately, family planning alone—such as the use of condoms and other reproductive health services—in parts of the world with growing populations, including the U.S., could restrain population growth significantly, this analysis finds. It would appear that we're trying, thanks primarily to ongoing efforts to enable women to take control of their own lives through education and other methods. Already, birth rates the world over have halved from an average of five children per women to just 2.6 today—a baby bust replacing the baby boom.
It would also help solve many other problems besides GW. Pete Will birth control solve climate change?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2010-10-11
By David Biello Oct 11, 2010 04:01 PM 2
An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach 9 billion by 2050. Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis—the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.
"Demography will matter to greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years," said earth systems scientist Brian O'Neill of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, lead author of the analysis, in a statement. "If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution."
O'Neill and his colleagues paired data from national household surveys in 34 countries with a new economic model—the Population Environment and Technology (PET) model—to estimate the impact of various population growth scenarios on greenhouse gas emissions. The model also took into account changes in the makeup of that overall population, based on United Nations data, such as the aging population of Europe as well as the rapidly urbanizing one of India.
That urban growth—roughly half of humanity already lives in cities for the first time in recorded history—may lead to a big increase in greenhouse gas emissions. As urban residents enter the middle class, particularly in China and India, they increase their consumption of energy and transportation. "Urban living can be more energy efficient," the authors write in the analysis published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on October 11, but increased income results in "increased emissions."
At the same time, the mellowing that comes with age in industrialized countries could cut emissions from countries such as those in the E.U. by as much as 20 percent. At least that's true if present retirement ages and the like remain the same; "if retirement is postponed," the scientists note, "the emissions-reducing effect of aging that we find here will be lessened."
Overall, curbing population growth could reduce greenhouse gas emissions; reducing peak population to roughly 8 billion, for example, could save 29 percent of expected greenhouse gas emissions. Economic growth seems like one way to accomplish that, considering that rising wealth has historically slowed birth rates. But O'Neill and his colleagues warn that, if fewer but richer people consume more—as current consumption patterns in places like the U.S. suggest—those greenhouse gas savings become increased emissions.
Ultimately, family planning alone—such as the use of condoms and other reproductive health services—in parts of the world with growing populations, including the U.S., could restrain population growth significantly, this analysis finds. It would appear that we're trying, thanks primarily to ongoing efforts to enable women to take control of their own lives through education and other methods. Already, birth rates the world over have halved from an average of five children per women to just 2.6 today—a baby bust replacing the baby boom.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Source
Re: Global Warming 2
someone once posted on this very forum
Post subject: Re: "A Vast Tapestry of Lies" - POLLPosted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:15 am
Here is a bit of truth
Global warming is a SYMPTOM
co2 is a SYMPTOM
Deforestation is a SYMPTOM
Urbanisation is a SYMPTOM
industrialisation is a SYMPTOM
OVERPOPULATION IS THE DESEASE AND THE PROBLEM
And while the neros fiddle over a single symptom the world is going down the toilet
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand
Re: Global Warming 2
The headline says 'Unlikely activist'. Of course it's 'unlikely' because he's dead. Toast. Snuffed it. A corpse. Even mainstream media has covered this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... error.htmlsandman67 wrote:today I am introduced to a whole new concept
sharing a common position with OSAMA BIN LADEN
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... ate-change
...and yet, 'terrorists' are now concerned with Global Warming? I get it. It MUST be true if even terrorists believe it.
Wonder when the long dead (of renal failure) Osama will start telling everyone to ensure their wheelie bins are in the right place?
The authenticity of the tape and its precise release date could not be immediately confirmed.
The authenticity of the tape and its precise release date could not be immediately confirmed.
The authenticity of the tape and its precise release date could not be immediately confirmed.
Desperate.
Re: Global Warming 2
GOP Gives Climate Science A Cold Shoulder
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazi ... 01009_9888
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazi ... 01009_9888
Re: Global Warming 2
Oil lobby's spending blows away environmental groups
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... t-groups/1
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... t-groups/1
Re: Global Warming 2
The GW scaremongers have been discredited by 'Climate-Gate'; by the record cold temperatures; by the vested interests set to make billions; by the political push to set up global systems of 'governance'; by the potential deaths of millions in the third world, denied access to energy and by the simple fact that global mean temperatures have barely moved since 1995.
If they were serious about the environment and polluters, all the BP executives would be serving time by now. The CEO of Union Carbide, the CEO of Exxon and so on. They don't give a damn for the planet. They're dropping bombs on half of it and laying waste to the rest digging up raw materials, poisoning our air, soil and water. This is just a political and financial scam with lots of huffing and puffing to distract from the real problem.
Cancel all your air travel, stop driving a car and set a good example.
If they were serious about the environment and polluters, all the BP executives would be serving time by now. The CEO of Union Carbide, the CEO of Exxon and so on. They don't give a damn for the planet. They're dropping bombs on half of it and laying waste to the rest digging up raw materials, poisoning our air, soil and water. This is just a political and financial scam with lots of huffing and puffing to distract from the real problem.
Cancel all your air travel, stop driving a car and set a good example.
Re: Global Warming 2
Or you could practice what you preach and stop turning on your computer and posting dribble rubbish and total crapCancel all your air travel, stop driving a car and set a good example.
it saves electricity
Dont worry chaps i am on his no see list
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand