Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
Remote Sensing Systems said:
...A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)
There's no point me commenting. You can decide whether to believe the "Journalist, Author and Broadcaster" or the "Senior Research Scientist at Remote Sensing Systems".Raw surface temperature data is not so agreeable.
Lotus 50 said:
mondeoman said:
It doesn't say that at all, it says the MODELS cant do it unless you fudge them and add in made-up numbers.
To paraphrase properly - the models do not follow the data ergo, the models are wrong.
Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.
With respect, I suggest you read the publication again and stop just seeing what you want to see.To paraphrase properly - the models do not follow the data ergo, the models are wrong.
Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.
turbobloke said:
Which doesn't change anything about what mondeoman posted and, with the same level of respect, it's rather ironic to mention seeing what you want to see when the entire edifice of manmadeup warming is based on an invisible causal human signal in global climate data that some people want to see - and, amazingly, faith makes it possible.
You keep on saying that but did you not see that the paper also makes reference to the visible causal human signal on atmospheric water vapour?http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
Which doesn't change anything about what mondeoman posted and, with the same level of respect, it's rather ironic to mention seeing what you want to see when the entire edifice of manmadeup warming is based on an invisible causal human signal in global climate data that some people want to see - and, amazingly, faith makes it possible.
You keep on saying that but did you not see that the paper also makes reference to the visible causal human signal on atmospheric water vapour?http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
"Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone."
That's nowhere near enough. Models also say that current warming (raw data flat for 100 to 150 years in both hemispheres) cannot be explained except by carbon dioxide forcing, yet reality dropped out of model projections sime time ago and only the recent strong El Nino changed that and for a short time.
Also that's not a global climate signal, temperature and energy are what's needed.
You could have pointed to something equally non-global-climate which happen to be composition changes, such as atmospheric levels of CFCs, or heavy metal concentration in sea water, or even carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
In terms of carbon dioxide, some (Essenhigh) would disagree that mankind's emissions determine the atmospheric level, but I don't think you'll find anyone who would claim there is not a single molecule of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at any one time. Thus there is a human signal in composition changes, but not global climate changes. What I said remains accurate.
This represents one of the fundamental misunderstandings about manmade global warming. Changes in composition, even when risibly based on failed inadequate climate models, are not what the visible causal human signal in global climate data is all about. The main reason global warming morphed into climate change as we all know is that temperature wasn't playing ball compared to gigo model output.
It's supposedly all about a dominant yet remarkably ineffective radiative forcing that's meant to be altering the planet's energy budget, hence the energy criterion, leading to global warming, hence the temperature criterion.
Although I wasn't going to mention it, there's no harm.
As indicated by Smith, Yin and Gruber "A positive atmospheric water vapor feedback, in response to an increase in the radiative warming of the well-mixed greenhouse gases, is at the foundation of the IPCC perspective on global warming." And as Spencer has told us "Positive water vapor feedback is probably the most “certain” and important of the feedbacks in the climate system in the minds of mainstream climate researchers."
Which is bad news given that water vapour feedback is negative, according to the data rather than the false assumption programmed into climate models. It's even possible to have a net increase in total integrated water vapor, but negative water vapor feedback from a decrease in free-tropospheric humidity. Which is truly Steve Davis interesting given the evidence of just such a decrease in free tropospheric water vapour (Paltridge et al 2009).
Mention complete.
As indicated by Smith, Yin and Gruber "A positive atmospheric water vapor feedback, in response to an increase in the radiative warming of the well-mixed greenhouse gases, is at the foundation of the IPCC perspective on global warming." And as Spencer has told us "Positive water vapor feedback is probably the most “certain” and important of the feedbacks in the climate system in the minds of mainstream climate researchers."
Which is bad news given that water vapour feedback is negative, according to the data rather than the false assumption programmed into climate models. It's even possible to have a net increase in total integrated water vapor, but negative water vapor feedback from a decrease in free-tropospheric humidity. Which is truly Steve Davis interesting given the evidence of just such a decrease in free tropospheric water vapour (Paltridge et al 2009).
Mention complete.
Interesting article in the Grudian online today about Piers Corbyn:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/24...
He was talking about the miners strike and how Margaret Thatcher politicised climate change:
"It was in those weeks and months, Corbyn suggests, that Margaret Thatcher came up with her most devious plan to deindustrialise Britain and defeat the miners once and for all: she would popularise and endorse the science of man-made climate change, as a way of converting Britain from coal to nuclear power. The Hadley Centre, the world’s first dedicated research institution became her pet project. Thatcher, who later recanted her doom-mongering, “probably knew climate change was nonsense,” Corbyn suggests, “she was a scientist. But she was also a politician. The rest is history.”"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/24...
He was talking about the miners strike and how Margaret Thatcher politicised climate change:
"It was in those weeks and months, Corbyn suggests, that Margaret Thatcher came up with her most devious plan to deindustrialise Britain and defeat the miners once and for all: she would popularise and endorse the science of man-made climate change, as a way of converting Britain from coal to nuclear power. The Hadley Centre, the world’s first dedicated research institution became her pet project. Thatcher, who later recanted her doom-mongering, “probably knew climate change was nonsense,” Corbyn suggests, “she was a scientist. But she was also a politician. The rest is history.”"
Exactly. While the use of 'about' could be seen as an escape route, everyone knows 
that the decadal trend as measured around The Pause 
is only 0.11 C per decade +/- 0.04 with no established causality to humans. Personally I'm not scared of a natural unremarkable potential overall warming of around 0.01 deg C per year which is below the error bar of the measurements, and pleased to note the continuing divergence of UAH and e.g. HadCRUT4 which signals the corrupted nature of near-surface datasets (they're not independent).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/09/huge-diverge...
Not to worry, or maybe worry more
mere speculation from self-appointed experts says it's down to us - all or most of the 0.01 deg C per year terror.
that the decadal trend as measured around The Pause is only 0.11 C per decade +/- 0.04 with no established causality to humans. Personally I'm not scared of a natural unremarkable potential overall warming of around 0.01 deg C per year which is below the error bar of the measurements, and pleased to note the continuing divergence of UAH and e.g. HadCRUT4 which signals the corrupted nature of near-surface datasets (they're not independent). http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/09/huge-diverge...
Not to worry, or maybe worry more
mere speculation from self-appointed experts says it's down to us - all or most of the 0.01 deg C per year terror.Edited by turbobloke on Monday 25th January 11:01
Mr GrimNasty said:
Well 'they' are convinced all the heat hides in the oceans, so great, the Oceans warming 1C would suck up 1000C of atmosphere warming.
Can't say I'm worried!
Right on. Get like Dave and chillax.Can't say I'm worried!
Estimated values of recent oceanic heat uptake are of the order of a few tenths of a W/m2 not scary and therefore not what it should be, oceans don't read IPCC reports or The Guardian. Deep ocean cooling is where it's at, man. See: Liang, Wunsch, Heimbach and Forget (that's a name not an instruction) in JoC 2015.
Can't remember who, but someone was banging on about Denmark and Wind, exaggerating/misrepresenting the performance/success.
Here's an article, which shows what a unique position they are in, very low energy requirements and ability to export to neighbours inc. pumped storage.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...
In the comments is a link to an article, they've had enough of the cost, which is not sustainable in the current economic climate.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-01/...
Here's an article, which shows what a unique position they are in, very low energy requirements and ability to export to neighbours inc. pumped storage.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...
In the comments is a link to an article, they've had enough of the cost, which is not sustainable in the current economic climate.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-01/...
turbobloke said:
From the latest LTT, not checked as yet but it looks to be of interest:
bSnip from letter said:
The following is based on a 1,034 kg state-of-the-art turbo diesel manual car. It's expected fuel consumption would be around 4.2 litres per 100 km. A litre of diesel fuel contains 40 MJ/litre or 11.2 kwh/litre of energy. So total energy needed to travel 100km is 11.2 x 4.2 = 47.2 kwh. Each litre of diesel fuel produces 2.66 kg of CO2, so CO2 produced per 100 km would be 2.66 x 4.2 = 11.2kg.
The overall efficiency of a diesel car (engine plus transmission) is around 30%, so if a vehicle was 100% efficient 14.2 kwh would be required to travel 100km. The Tesla batteries are state-of-the-art and a discharge-recharge cycle has an 87% efficiency. And the efficiency of converting electric motor energy to forward propulsion is around 85%. Hence, for a 1,034 kg electric vehicle, the energy required to travel 100 km would be 14.2 / 0.87 / 0.85 = 19.2 kwh without adjustments for regenerative braking. Typically, hybrid technology including regenerative braking reduces fuel consumption by around 25%, so it would be expected that energy required would be around 14.4 kwh per 100 km.
Tesla data shows the weight of the actual batteries is around 3.3 kg per kwh. However, the battery enclosure plus cooling system and related components adds 170% to the overall weight. Hence a 48 kwh battery will weigh around 428 kg. There will be a saving in weight through removing the diesel engine and cooling system and fuel tank and transmission, and an increase in weight for the regenerative braking motor combination, with a net decrease in weight of ~200 kg. Hence overall it would be expected that the 1,034 kg weight of a diesel car would be increased by 228 kg to around 1,264 kg. As energy requirement is largely proportional to weight in urban environments, the required energy consumption / 100 km would be 14.4 x 1,264 / 1,034 = 17.6 kwh/100 km.
If power comes from a coal-fired power station the following apply for black coal: energy produced per tonne = 6,150 kwh. However, the efficiency of converting that energy to electricity is only around 36%, and transmission losses between the power station and users is typically around 7%. So the energy available for recharging an electric vehicle is 2,059 kwh/tonne. And burning a tonne of coal produces 2,860 kg of CO2, or 1.39 kg per kwh.
Hence the electric vehicle would produce 17.6 x 1.39 = 24.4 kg CO2/100 km, nearly 2.2 times more than the diesel vehicle.
The overall efficiency of a diesel car (engine plus transmission) is around 30%, so if a vehicle was 100% efficient 14.2 kwh would be required to travel 100km. The Tesla batteries are state-of-the-art and a discharge-recharge cycle has an 87% efficiency. And the efficiency of converting electric motor energy to forward propulsion is around 85%. Hence, for a 1,034 kg electric vehicle, the energy required to travel 100 km would be 14.2 / 0.87 / 0.85 = 19.2 kwh without adjustments for regenerative braking. Typically, hybrid technology including regenerative braking reduces fuel consumption by around 25%, so it would be expected that energy required would be around 14.4 kwh per 100 km.
Tesla data shows the weight of the actual batteries is around 3.3 kg per kwh. However, the battery enclosure plus cooling system and related components adds 170% to the overall weight. Hence a 48 kwh battery will weigh around 428 kg. There will be a saving in weight through removing the diesel engine and cooling system and fuel tank and transmission, and an increase in weight for the regenerative braking motor combination, with a net decrease in weight of ~200 kg. Hence overall it would be expected that the 1,034 kg weight of a diesel car would be increased by 228 kg to around 1,264 kg. As energy requirement is largely proportional to weight in urban environments, the required energy consumption / 100 km would be 14.4 x 1,264 / 1,034 = 17.6 kwh/100 km.
If power comes from a coal-fired power station the following apply for black coal: energy produced per tonne = 6,150 kwh. However, the efficiency of converting that energy to electricity is only around 36%, and transmission losses between the power station and users is typically around 7%. So the energy available for recharging an electric vehicle is 2,059 kwh/tonne. And burning a tonne of coal produces 2,860 kg of CO2, or 1.39 kg per kwh.
Hence the electric vehicle would produce 17.6 x 1.39 = 24.4 kg CO2/100 km, nearly 2.2 times more than the diesel vehicle.
ks (not far off) but forgot about the amount of electricity required to produce/refine diesel (or petrol) and the amount energy/electricity/fuel to get the diesel/petrol out from refinerys to the petrol stations all before any of it goes into those super efficient diesels that eh... Don't achieve those mpg figures in the real world.As an EV driver I'm well aware that it is not 'zero emmision' due to where the electricity is generated, but from raw material to what is used to move the car it is far more efficient use of resources that a traditional car. (Please understand that I see this more important than 'our' impact on emissions etc, air quality and efficiency is what I fee is more important)
Oh and I saw this on BookFace and thought of this thread
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...
PKLD said:
turbobloke said:
From the latest LTT, not checked as yet but it looks to be of interest:
bSnip from letter said:
The following is based on a 1,034 kg state-of-the-art turbo diesel manual car. It's expected fuel consumption would be around 4.2 litres per 100 km. A litre of diesel fuel contains 40 MJ/litre or 11.2 kwh/litre of energy. So total energy needed to travel 100km is 11.2 x 4.2 = 47.2 kwh. Each litre of diesel fuel produces 2.66 kg of CO2, so CO2 produced per 100 km would be 2.66 x 4.2 = 11.2kg.
The overall efficiency of a diesel car (engine plus transmission) is around 30%, so if a vehicle was 100% efficient 14.2 kwh would be required to travel 100km. The Tesla batteries are state-of-the-art and a discharge-recharge cycle has an 87% efficiency. And the efficiency of converting electric motor energy to forward propulsion is around 85%. Hence, for a 1,034 kg electric vehicle, the energy required to travel 100 km would be 14.2 / 0.87 / 0.85 = 19.2 kwh without adjustments for regenerative braking. Typically, hybrid technology including regenerative braking reduces fuel consumption by around 25%, so it would be expected that energy required would be around 14.4 kwh per 100 km.
Tesla data shows the weight of the actual batteries is around 3.3 kg per kwh. However, the battery enclosure plus cooling system and related components adds 170% to the overall weight. Hence a 48 kwh battery will weigh around 428 kg. There will be a saving in weight through removing the diesel engine and cooling system and fuel tank and transmission, and an increase in weight for the regenerative braking motor combination, with a net decrease in weight of ~200 kg. Hence overall it would be expected that the 1,034 kg weight of a diesel car would be increased by 228 kg to around 1,264 kg. As energy requirement is largely proportional to weight in urban environments, the required energy consumption / 100 km would be 14.4 x 1,264 / 1,034 = 17.6 kwh/100 km.
If power comes from a coal-fired power station the following apply for black coal: energy produced per tonne = 6,150 kwh. However, the efficiency of converting that energy to electricity is only around 36%, and transmission losses between the power station and users is typically around 7%. So the energy available for recharging an electric vehicle is 2,059 kwh/tonne. And burning a tonne of coal produces 2,860 kg of CO2, or 1.39 kg per kwh.
Hence the electric vehicle would produce 17.6 x 1.39 = 24.4 kg CO2/100 km, nearly 2.2 times more than the diesel vehicle.
The overall efficiency of a diesel car (engine plus transmission) is around 30%, so if a vehicle was 100% efficient 14.2 kwh would be required to travel 100km. The Tesla batteries are state-of-the-art and a discharge-recharge cycle has an 87% efficiency. And the efficiency of converting electric motor energy to forward propulsion is around 85%. Hence, for a 1,034 kg electric vehicle, the energy required to travel 100 km would be 14.2 / 0.87 / 0.85 = 19.2 kwh without adjustments for regenerative braking. Typically, hybrid technology including regenerative braking reduces fuel consumption by around 25%, so it would be expected that energy required would be around 14.4 kwh per 100 km.
Tesla data shows the weight of the actual batteries is around 3.3 kg per kwh. However, the battery enclosure plus cooling system and related components adds 170% to the overall weight. Hence a 48 kwh battery will weigh around 428 kg. There will be a saving in weight through removing the diesel engine and cooling system and fuel tank and transmission, and an increase in weight for the regenerative braking motor combination, with a net decrease in weight of ~200 kg. Hence overall it would be expected that the 1,034 kg weight of a diesel car would be increased by 228 kg to around 1,264 kg. As energy requirement is largely proportional to weight in urban environments, the required energy consumption / 100 km would be 14.4 x 1,264 / 1,034 = 17.6 kwh/100 km.
If power comes from a coal-fired power station the following apply for black coal: energy produced per tonne = 6,150 kwh. However, the efficiency of converting that energy to electricity is only around 36%, and transmission losses between the power station and users is typically around 7%. So the energy available for recharging an electric vehicle is 2,059 kwh/tonne. And burning a tonne of coal produces 2,860 kg of CO2, or 1.39 kg per kwh.
Hence the electric vehicle would produce 17.6 x 1.39 = 24.4 kg CO2/100 km, nearly 2.2 times more than the diesel vehicle.
ks (not far off) but forgot about the amount of electricity required to produce/refine diesel (or petrol) and the amount energy/electricity/fuel to get the diesel/petrol out from refinerys to the petrol stations all before any of it goes into those super efficient diesels that eh... Don't achieve those mpg figures in the real world.As an EV driver I'm well aware that it is not 'zero emmision' due to where the electricity is generated, but from raw material to what is used to move the car it is far more efficient use of resources that a traditional car. (Please understand that I see this more important than 'our' impact on emissions etc, air quality and efficiency is what I fee is more important)
Oh and I saw this on BookFace and thought of this thread
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...
As I said, not checked and still the same. Time is scarce, barely enough to keep the post count going
We did Dust-to-Dust some time ago, which in spite of claims to the contrary, did include well to wheel aspects and more besides. It wasn't pleasant reading for EVs and lots of people spent a lot of time trying to rubbish it, as you would expect for something so heretical. I recall one claim posted on PH which I'm sure was rabbited from a typical half-baked green site, I'd just finished reading all 400+ pages (iirc, it seemed that long anyway) and could give the page number to squash the criticism. Happy days, more time as well.
We did Dust-to-Dust some time ago, which in spite of claims to the contrary, did include well to wheel aspects and more besides. It wasn't pleasant reading for EVs and lots of people spent a lot of time trying to rubbish it, as you would expect for something so heretical. I recall one claim posted on PH which I'm sure was rabbited from a typical half-baked green site, I'd just finished reading all 400+ pages (iirc, it seemed that long anyway) and could give the page number to squash the criticism. Happy days, more time as well.
mondeoman said:
For balance, also doesn't include cost of getting ore to surface, transport of ore round planet from China to UK, transport of ore from dock to station etc...
True and doesn't include if the diesel or EV car is made locally or overseas... My Leaf was made in the North East of the UK so saves a few extra resources getting it to my door in Scotland What about the maintainence and replacement parts that don't exist in EVs. Clever PH'ers replace their oil every year/10,000 miles or whatever, that needs to be added in and the fact that high mileage (100k) Leafs only needs brake pads, no clutches, no flywheels, no dpfs, no auto transmission fluids etc
Still we have to start somewhere in the comparison on moving my arse from point A to B in the cheapest way possible
turbobloke said:
As I said, not checked and still the same. Time is scarce, barely enough to keep the post count going
We did Dust-to-Dust some time ago, which in spite of claims to the contrary, did include well to wheel aspects and more besides. It wasn't pleasant reading for EVs and lots of people spent a lot of time trying to rubbish it, as you would expect for something so heretical. I recall one claim posted on PH which I'm sure was rabbited from a typical half-baked green site, I'd just finished reading all 400+ pages (iirc, it seemed that long anyway) and could give the page number to squash the criticism. Happy days, more time as well.
Given the high standards of critique on this thread I'll retreat to bring some sensible figures back here later. It's like preparing for battle in here - no room for sweeping statements or assumptions.We did Dust-to-Dust some time ago, which in spite of claims to the contrary, did include well to wheel aspects and more besides. It wasn't pleasant reading for EVs and lots of people spent a lot of time trying to rubbish it, as you would expect for something so heretical. I recall one claim posted on PH which I'm sure was rabbited from a typical half-baked green site, I'd just finished reading all 400+ pages (iirc, it seemed that long anyway) and could give the page number to squash the criticism. Happy days, more time as well.
Unless you think none of what humans do affects the world, then you (not you TB) are allowed to say 'yeah well it ain't got any warmer here and look at all that snow so global warming definitely don't exist'
Btw I highly doubt that what we do will massively shift global temperature and weather etc but what I do think we need to be aware of is resource consumption and air quality. Look to China and wether you think all those coal power stations will affect anything or not, those combined with crazy traffic are causing real health problems and quality of life issues for everyone in cities.
PKLD said:
turbobloke said:
As I said, not checked and still the same. Time is scarce, barely enough to keep the post count going
We did Dust-to-Dust some time ago, which in spite of claims to the contrary, did include well to wheel aspects and more besides. It wasn't pleasant reading for EVs and lots of people spent a lot of time trying to rubbish it, as you would expect for something so heretical. I recall one claim posted on PH which I'm sure was rabbited from a typical half-baked green site, I'd just finished reading all 400+ pages (iirc, it seemed that long anyway) and could give the page number to squash the criticism. Happy days, more time as well.
Given the high standards of critique on this thread I'll retreat to bring some sensible figures back here later. It's like preparing for battle in here - no room for sweeping statements or assumptions.We did Dust-to-Dust some time ago, which in spite of claims to the contrary, did include well to wheel aspects and more besides. It wasn't pleasant reading for EVs and lots of people spent a lot of time trying to rubbish it, as you would expect for something so heretical. I recall one claim posted on PH which I'm sure was rabbited from a typical half-baked green site, I'd just finished reading all 400+ pages (iirc, it seemed that long anyway) and could give the page number to squash the criticism. Happy days, more time as well.
Certain people regard that peer-review thing as a yardstick worth mentioning and if you look back through only the past two days you'll see it checks out. Personally there's plenty of convincing evidence that in this particular context it's over-rated due to being broken in the past and not yet fully healed.
As you'll appreciate, these threads have been running for many years, so what appears to be a haughty throw-away one liner - humour is tricky on the internet, but "high standards of critique" looks like sarcasm but may not be - means nothing without back-up. Good luck with posting something that hasn't been aired before, it would be most welcome, very much so. As to that critique, if something is marked as 'not checked' what critique exactly was being referred to?!
PKLD said:
Unless you think none of what humans do affects the world...
Nobody I've read on this or similar threads think that, as it happens.PKLD said:
...then you (not you TB) are allowed to say 'yeah well it ain't got any warmer here and look at all that snow so global warming definitely don't exist'
Fair enough and with a smiley for good measure. As you will surely appreciate, lots of folks posting on this thread are making comments at one level but possess an understanding at a deeper level which isn't always called into action. We've done lots of heavy lifting over the years and sometimes the lighter stuff is nothing more than a welcome break. PKLD said:
Btw I highly doubt that what we do will massively shift global temperature and weather etc but what I do think we need to be aware of is resource consumption and air quality.
Lots of people on lots of threads have said similar things and again, nobody I've read on PH over time has advocated irresponsibility.PKLD said:
Look to China and wether you think all those coal power stations will affect anything or not, those combined with crazy traffic are causing real health problems and quality of life issues for everyone in cities.
Yes indeed but that's pollution not carbon dioxide.Tax gas is not a pollutant in that sense, regardless of a politically motivated silly decision from the EPA. The levels likely to be reached will have no significant (and probably no measurable) impact on humans as we can tolerate far higher levels than 400 ppmv.
Meanwhile trees and crops love it and I guess there's no need to repeat that lack of any visible causal human signal from tax gas even though I just did. What's to be concerned about? As you say, pollution is there to be concerned about, but then when it comes to the average quality of indoor air, it's 10x more pulluted than urban air and is found 100x more polluted than city smog, results from the Gov't Buildings Research Establishment (Dr Jeff Llewellyn). Officicaldom has no equivalent concern, which reveals a lot. You will also no doubt have seen the very real pollution in China that occurs around the processes associated with turbine rare earth extraction and EV component manufacture.
Reading some Thai news sources, apparently there are people in Laos and Vietnam posting pics on Instagram of snow, a very rare and exciting local event for them (copyright issues with Viner).
Bangkok has seen temperatures below 20 deg C, around 16 or 17, and if I read it correctly there's a forecast for 13 deg C which is almost unprecedented there are one or two PHers based in BKK it would be good to hear from them.
I've spent Decembers there and never experienced anything below mid-20s deg C and often around 30 deg C, importantly the sample size is about right for a thread on climate change can't find anything on the BBC website as yet.
I think I got the general gist right as there are sources in English that say roughly the same thing but without the same personalised details
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/siberian-col...
It's good to quote a reliable source rather than the BBC in any case
Bangkok has seen temperatures below 20 deg C, around 16 or 17, and if I read it correctly there's a forecast for 13 deg C which is almost unprecedented
there are one or two PHers based in BKK it would be good to hear from them. I've spent Decembers there and never experienced anything below mid-20s deg C and often around 30 deg C, importantly the sample size is about right for a thread on climate change
can't find anything on the BBC website as yet.I think I got the general gist right as there are sources in English that say roughly the same thing but without the same personalised details
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/siberian-col...
It's good to quote a reliable source rather than the BBC in any case
PKLD said:
Btw I highly doubt that what we do will massively shift global temperature and weather etc but what I do think we need to be aware of is resource consumption and air quality. Look to China and wether you think all those coal power stations will affect anything or not, those combined with crazy traffic are causing real health problems and quality of life issues for everyone in cities.
Absolutely. Along with deforestation and shark finning and other things which are causing massive damage to the planet.That is what really annoys be about this AGW bull***t - actual issues are being ignored, all so rich people can get richer and poor people are kept under the yoke and under control. It really is a travesty of our time.
And that doesn't even start on the damage caused by the mining for the raw materials for "green" products, which are nothing but.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff