Climate change? There were concerns about this as early as 1900! And Thailand is very vulnerable
The existing or non-existent reality of global warming, the connection with CO2 and human actions is a hot topic and has flared up again after this very hot summer. Opinions range from complete denial to the prediction that the earth will be uninhabitable in 100 years. It is less well known that this matter was news in many countries, including the Netherlands, more than a hundred years ago. Thailand is very vulnerable.
The whole world will most likely face increasing problems due to global warming. Thailand is perhaps more vulnerable than many other countries, especially Bangkok, its environs and the coastal provinces. Bangkok is less than 2 meters above sea level, sinking 2 centimeters per year while sea levels rise half a centimeter per year. Pessimistic forecasts assume that Bangkok will be flooded in 30 to 50 years unless very expensive measures are taken. Increasingly heavy monsoon rains also contribute to this.
Bangkok also emits a lot of CO2, 7.1 tons per inhabitant per year, compared to resp. 5.9 and 5.7 tons for London and Tokyo.
There are many skeptics who deny that the world is warming or deny that human actions are responsible for it. I was interested in reports that predicted global warming even before 1900. That's what this next story is about.
A news item in the Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 1 February 1913
Is our climate changing?
Several scientists have previously predicted a probable climate change of our earth on the basis of the ever-increasing carbon dioxide in the air, which high carbon dioxide content is due to the enormous consumption of coal.
At present Prof. Van Hise of the Hogeschool in Wisconsin has published statistics in support of his theory of the gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere.
It is known that the earth's atmosphere forms a protective layer which impedes the radiation of heat, and that it does this all the more as the content of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the air is greater. Well, says Hise, as the use of coal increases annually, so does the carbon dioxide content of the air, and consequently the air temperature. According to Hise, in 800 years the amount of carbon in the air will be twice as large as it is today, the heat radiation will then be so much more suppressed and therefore the climate must have become warmer all over the earth.
What other scholars and media said about it in the 19e and start 20e century
Under the heading 'Coal consumption affecting climate' in a New Zealand newspaper in 1912 it was stated that the burning of 2.000.000.000 tons of coal per year released 7.000.000.000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which would significantly raise the temperature in the 'ages to come'. make it rise.
The French physicist Joseph Fourier already established in 1824 that the composition of the atmosphere is very likely to influence the temperature.
A study by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 was entitled 'On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature on the ground'. He made a calculation to what extent that might be the case.
In the December 1882 issue of Nature, HA Phillips writes:
According to a study by Prof. Tyndall, the gases hydrogen, methane and ethylene have the property of being able to store and re-emit heat to a great extent, so much so that only a very small ratio, say one thousand, has a large effect. From this we can deduce that increasing pollution of the atmosphere will have a clear influence on the climate.
Historian Jeff Nichols found that between 1883 and 1912 many newspapers ran articles that referred to the possibility that the climate could be changed by higher carbon dioxide levels in the air.
Undoubtedly, in those years around 1900, coal burning caused a more visible and odorous pollution. If you can't see, smell, feel or hear something, does it really exist?
Carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere
The carbon dioxide content in the air is expressed in ppm, parts per million. prof. Van Hise predicted a 100 percent increase over the next 800 years. He made a bit of a mistake there, which we can't blame him for.
In 1900 the carbon dioxide content was 300 ppm, it increased exponentially especially after the Second World War and is now 410, the highest number in the past 400.000 years. If the increase continues at the same rate, we will reach the doubling in 60 years' time, which the honorable Professor Van Hise at the end of 19e century predicted that doubling would not occur for another 800 years. But it can be said in his apology that he could not have foreseen the explosion of energy-consuming tools. The internet alone runs on the energy of 5 medium-sized power plants.
In addition, it has been clearly shown that fluctuations in temperature over the past 400 million years coincide with fluctuations in the CO2 content of the air. Those fluctuations in the past stretched over (ten) thousands of years, while the changes are now measured in hundred(s) of years.
Conclusion
It is certain that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing rapidly. It is also almost certain that this phenomenon causes a certain amount of global warming. The temperature rise is now on average, over the entire earth and measured over a whole year, 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius. That doesn't seem much, but remember that it's an average, over the entire globe and over a whole year. It is very likely that over certain areas and in certain periods there will be no increase at all, while elsewhere and in other seasons an increase of up to 4-6 degrees can be seen, as is now the case in the polar regions.
According to some, who caused this increase in CO2 in the air is still an issue and a subject of further research.
Impact of climate change on Thailand
climate.org/archive/topics/international-action/thailand.htm
Humans will undoubtedly contribute to global warming.
However, probably more from cutting down forests and laying concrete floors with buildings (popularly called cities) all over the planet than from CO2 emissions.
However, it is also clear that the earth has been warming for tens of thousands of years, because that XNUMX meters thick layer of ice that covered northern Europe has not disappeared in the last few hundred years.
That warming will also go faster and faster, despite what other measures people take.
There are a number of reasons for this.
1. Ice reflects sunlight back into space.
As there is less ice, less sunlight will be reflected and the temperature will rise more quickly.
2. Ice has a cooling effect by melting, think of the ice cubes in your glass.
As there is less ice, that cooling effect will decrease.
3. The ice has not only diminished, it has also warmed up.
It should be clear that ice of minus 20 degrees cools better than ice of minus 10 degrees.
The conclusion may be that humans are running a losing race as far as warming is concerned.
It might slow the warming up a little bit, but probably, it's just slowing down the increase in the rate of warming, not the rate of warming itself.
How hot will it eventually get?
I have no idea, but I don't think it's unlikely that in a hundred years' time we will have conditions similar to the conditions of the warm periods of prehistoric times, when the dinosaurs roamed.
This unless humans come up with spectacular solutions, such as hanging a parasol in space above the North Pole, so that the ice grows back.
But whatever solutions man devises, it will be clear that the earth is facing enormous changes.
Because every solution gives its own change.
As long as people with considerably lesser mental abilities than 100 years ago are elected (or otherwise run a country) who continue to deny all this, tear up the Paris Agreement and -as we speak- give coal-fired power stations a free hand again by steaming, it will don't get better..
The Paris Agreement is a farce
http://www.ockhams-scheermes.be/427675255
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/malcolm-turnbull-removes-all-climate-change-targets-from-energy-policy-in-fresh-bid-to-save-leadership-20180820-p4zyht.html
Only NL adheres to the agreements never made. Laughable. The agreement is only about intentions, with which you can go in any direction.
Gas is indeed better than coal, wind turbines and solar panels. Even better is nuclear energy, cheap, safe and almost unlimited. Dams, on the other hand, are the most dangerous and the worst for the environment.
Also nice when it comes to Paris.
https://youtu.be/cVkAsPizAbU
Soon removed by Youtube
The problem is NOT that little rise in the sea level, but the shifting of harvests.
Already 15 years ago someone from the Thai Grain Institute (Rice Club) said: “+2C on average means that S + SE Asia only has one rice crop per year and we therefore have 500 million mouths too many to feed”.
No problem. Those who are alive now will not experience it anymore and the descendants will adapt. Or else do as I do, make sure there are no more descendants.
Don't get excited with all those nonsensical theories and scaremongering for political gain.
Read more: https://www.ninefornews.nl/geen-verband-co2-temperatuur/
NineForNews.nl
Homepage » Nature and Environment » No relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature. Emeritus professor explains why we are completely off track in the Netherlands
Oh yes, that website on which the earth is flat, UFOs are a daily reality and you can have an abortion with homeopathy. Yes, now my doubts are really gone. It's one big conspiracy this whole climate change thing. Fortunately, I am now reassured that I have not contributed anything to it and I have no responsibility whatsoever.
There is of course something going on, but fortunately it is not as bad as mentioned:
“The temperature rise is now on average, over the entire earth and measured over an entire year, 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius.”
That would mean that we will all be cooked in a hundred years.
I do not deny that the climate is influenced by humans. But my irritation and disgust grow considerably, if politicians can't come up with anything else than an increase in the tax burden.
That is certainly not a solution, as the extra revenue (how typical in the Netherlands) is not used for innovation.
Where are the ideas to make ge-energy, wind and solar energy really effective and efficient?
I think innovation is lagging far behind.
Strange that there are still people who believe in the hoax of co2 and climate change or global warming, too long in the Thai sun, surely? Strange that some like to see calamity in the future, preppers, end of the earth, armageddon, they believe everything, even that there is a guy somewhere above us who arranges everything, if we only believe that then we can even go to him, later. And of course governments like to bring in the climate to mask their failures, because they also realize that the people are stupid and you can tell them anything, even if two thirds of the earth is sea, which is an average of 800 meters deep, every year rises one cm. Has Al Gore ever calculated how much ice that is? You better think than follow !
Climate change is a fact, and we humans also play a role in it. You can still debate exactly how everything is related, such as co2 (see link by Maarten Vastbinder). But denying climate change is really stupid.
I recently saw a nice about in which some fool of a denier tells me to listen mainly to the 3% of scientists who are skeptical about human influence on the climate and that the rest are a bunch of ignorant crooks. Unfortunately I can't find more than this one: 'but what if we do all this for nothing?' https://www.thoughtco.com/global-warming-cartoons-4122873
We have to get rid of fossil fuels just because they are used for politics. For years we have been chained to dubious regimes because of our hunger for oil. The petrodollars are then used in a number of cases to finance terrorism and wars. What a blessing it would be to the world if we got rid of that.
Do you realize how quickly man has brought the earth to the brink of destruction?
After the Second World War, plastic became widely used.
Say about 70 years ago.
Now the whole earth is forgiven, we have done that in 70 years.
Entire jungles have been cut down, and this is still going on.
And we have already fished the sea almost empty.
And I can demonstrate that humans have an influence on the climate.
In the rainy season there is usually a lot of rain in Thailand.
I live in Khon Kaen, a city with about 130.000 inhabitants.
So not a very big city.
As the sun begins to set, the atmosphere cools, and it often rains.
But often only above the city.
Why this?
The concrete has warmed up in the sun, and is much warmer than the area outside the city.
As a result, the warmer air rises above the city, cooling it and condensing the water vapor into rain.
The rising warm air sucks in the moist air from the surrounding area, and as a result, up to many kilometers away, hijacks the rain that should fall elsewhere.
If you go out of town, it often gets dry.
How much influence do you think a metropolis like Bangkok will have on the environment?
Since cities are permanent, you can also call the local weather climate.
The same applies to densely built-up countries, because the influence of the buildings extends for kilometers beyond the edge of the built-up area and the built-up areas overlap in terms of local weather.
In the Netherlands, this effect will be smaller in Thailand, because the sun has less power and the difference in temperature between built-up and non-built-up areas is smaller, and the wind blows more often.
One consolation, the earth will survive.
Whether mammals do that is something else, but something will naturally arise on earth that loves to eat plastic and eats its fill – leaving behind its waste, probably CO2 – a lot of CO2, and maybe methane.
studies against a climate agreement or pro ?
The contras or in political terms the Trump fans who interpret that as a safe conduct to pollution.
I personally am a pro, I know damn well how an old diesel smells when I drive behind it with my scooter, or how the many fires can stink in Thailand, whether or not accompanied by plastic combustion.
Just give me clean air , it breathes much better and more pleasantly .
All other forms of pollution are anything but pleasant and affect the environment .
So I'm a pro at heart, I don't follow a crazy president who takes that measure just to give his friends oil barons a safe conduct to pollute, whether it's about clean air or a climate change that requires clean air, it's okay either way , the result should be clean air . Or is getting sick from that dirty air also fake? We also have to take that into account.
For that president everything is fake if it does not suit him , and yes I am aiming for him , because he will be the cause of less measures so that we will breathe more dirty air and then get sick .
Earth's climatic changes have been a source of concern and amusement for hundreds of centuries.
How long has it been since anyone saw a dinosaur?
Nature is constantly changing, partly due to the actions and behavior of its inhabitants. Humans are part of it, combating looming overpopulation through warfare and mass murder.
And exhausts mother earth. We will not experience it, many years will pass.
There are many uncertainties in climate models for the future. Warming models that are extreme are often used in headlines, Urgenda and Groen Links. Many assumptions are presented as truth and that is precisely where the sensation is obtained. Many data that show that nothing is wrong do not make the news. Climate models from the past were always wrong, which shows how difficult it is to predict the climate in 50 years. You can, of course, look at the past and there is again massive manipulation of data. Precisely to show what I would like to have as an outcome. The KNMI is also participating in this… And whether the date is correct or not, these scientists 'show' that there has been no warming for the last 20 years.
https://doorbraak.be/klimaat-opwarming-mens/
Why do people always have such a negative image about our earth and humanity. It is better than 100 years ago in almost everything. Health care, child mortality, income, decreasing poverty, and pollution and particulate matter, wars and we are aging at a rapid pace worldwide. And it also increases well: https://m.phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offset.html
People have many things in mind that are very different from the numbers. People somehow always tend to see the world negatively. Is everything perfect then? No, certainly not, there is still a lot to improve in all directions and that is called progress and with the increase in income we are also getting better and better at cleaning up the mess behind our asses. Look at the differences in Europe and Asia… in 25 years time everything will be much cleaner and tidier in Thailand.
In the minds of people weather and climate are often connected We used to have nicer summers, it was colder in the winter we could skate more etc. The hell world is on fire, Syria Afghanistan, Russia etc those are personal observations and they are often linked to emotion. These say nothing about the measured data.
For those who really want to know how well our humanity and earth are doing: https://humanprogress.org
Everything is getting better you say.
The sea is full of plastic, but apparently it's not enough yet, because we enthusiastically keep throwing in more.
The jungles are still being cut down and/or set on fire for agricultural land.
More flights are flown every year, with all the associated pollution.
We want to pump petroleum out of the shale layers, with the risk of polluting the surface water.
Trump wants to start burning coal again.
Fewer and fewer fish swim around in the sea.
In a while, the last free-roaming elephant will be shot for its tusks.
I could go on with this list for a while, but for you the glass is apparently half full, and for me it's almost empty.
And our environmental measures?
We buy wood in Canada, transport it to the Netherlands on a heavily polluting cargo ship, and burn it there.
Then we say with dry eyes that we have done something for the environment.
If you count the fuel oil used, and the pollution and CO2 emissions for pumping up, transporting, and refining that oil, the environment has probably only become worse from co-firing that wood in the power plant.
But of course it sounds nice.
It's a very interesting theme. The problem, I understand, is not the increase in temperature and the change that comes with it, but the speed with which it comes.
On the other hand, I also learned in the past that the ice ages also came quite quickly and that many animal species became extinct as a result.
The increase in temperature will not make us humans extinct just yet. There are enough people on earth to survive that as a species and to adapt to it. Nevertheless, much suffering will undoubtedly ensue. Nature doesn't care about that. Isn't nature a bit like our government? If the numbers are right. It doesn't care what the individual thinks. Transformed into nature: as many species can live and survive as there are resources. If they are not sufficiently present, many will have to suffer.
As far as the increase in temperature is concerned, I don't think it can be turned around anymore. We can make sure that we don't contribute to it any further...
By the way, in 1913 also spelling errors in official newspapers or articles:
A news item in the Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 1 February 1913
Is our climate changing? (I also think then it should have been written with "t")
Pollution is not the same as climate change. That mistake is made a lot.
Here's a video of the sadly deceased George Carlin, who spoke to Mother Earth and tells what she thinks of all this.
https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c