Misab
-
Posts
410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Misab
-
-
Can foreigners living in a rented house in Thailand long time contract get a yellow book?
-
46 minutes ago, azt219 said:
Kovet have various oxygen concentrators 1L,5L,10L versions.
They were being used in hospitals during the COVID pandemic.
24/7 capable
can contact them on Line @Kovet
Thank you
-
Anyone with COPD and experience with oxygen generators. I’m looking for one there doesn’t burn down if running 24/7 and produce up to 5 litre per minute.
-
19 hours ago, Yellowtail said:
Why?
Well Yellowtail, sometimes a short question demands a long answer, it comes here ????
I know my answe goes a litte further than your Why
According to scientist at Nasa.org and others. From the moment we stop the high emitting of CO2 into the atmosphere it will take between 300 and 1000 years before it is naturally gone. Yes, I know there are some there claim only between 50 and 300 years. But still a long time.
Why will it take so long? Because CO2 disappear from the atmosphere when some minerals naturally react with CO2, and turning carbon dioxide from a gas into a solid. This process is commonly referred to as “carbon mineralization” and it naturally happens very very slowly.
Also, the oceans will slowly dissolve some of CO2 besides the 25% it already dissolves every year. But here is a risk factor because the Ocean produces about 60 - 70 % og our oxygen from alger and plankton etc,, and is essential for life. It is not only us humans who consume oxygen, so does the animal world, not to forget that burning fossil fuels consumes oxygen, all forms of burning do. (So, when farmers in Thailand, Laos, Myanmar etc. set the countries on fire, they kill our oxygen and even worse, people dies because smoke ruins their lungs.) Our oxygen level in the atmosphere is normally 21%, but according to Forbes.com it’s slowly decreasing. The critical level for humans is 19.5%
Should also mentioned that ice cores from the Greenland ice sheet shows that present CO2 level ppm 420 has not been recorded for the past 800.000 years. However, an ice sample from the Vostok core shows 298.6 ppm and that happens 330.000 years ago.
Every year the world's oceans absorb approximately ¼ of all the CO2 we emit. We know it's on the ocean floor, and we know the average pH of the ocean is about 8.1, but as the ocean continues to absorb more and more CO2, the pH drops and the ocean becomes more acidic, and over time it will harm life in the oceans it has already an effect on our beautiful corals.
Another problem is Plastic pollution in the Oceans. It’s a danger not only to the animals in the oceans but also to the marine bacteria that are vital for the world's oxygen supply, states ARC, the Australian Research Council, in a news article. A research team has proven that plastic leaches several chemical additives into marine environments, which affect, among other things, the bacteria that produce oxygen.
A lot of our CO2 could have been absorbed by rainforests, if it weren't for the fact that money rule the world and deforestation of rainforests, including the Amazon, continues.
Other dangers are
Our entire ecosystem is so finely tuned, but also fragile when we change the balance. Examples of this are The Gulf Stream and the Monsoon. The gulf stream sends water in two directions, warm water is sent on the surface northwards from the Gulf of Mexico, and this gives North America and Northern Europe a milder climate. Cold water is sent back along the bottom. The Gulf Stream also influences our weather system. According to sciencedaily.com, it has already lost 15% of its strength because the sea temperature in the arctic area has risen, and the Greenland ice sheet is melting at a rapid pace. The fresh water no longer sinks all the way to the bottom and thus contributes to destroying the natural pumping function which sends cold water southwards. No one knows how much the Gulf Stream can tolerate losing in strength before it collapses. If that happens it can cause chain reactions that no one has an overview of. We don’t know if it will affect the Monsoon's rain. But we do know India and the whole of Southeast Asia are dependent on the Monsoon.
The understanding of the enormous problems that lie ahead does not seem to be present among the politicians, especially not in the countries that pollute the most.
-
1
-
-
On 3/24/2023 at 3:36 PM, Misab said:
7 degrees is almost a half a century (~500 yrs)away, at the 1.5C rate per 100 yrs, that may or may not happen.
No, it is not. According to Nasa.org will we pass 3 degrees maybe even higher at 2100 and accellerating up. The problem is the CO2 in the atmosphere it will stay there for hundreds of years,
-
On 4/20/2023 at 1:34 PM, thaibeachlovers said:
Hmmmm. If we continue polluting our environment ( not talking about climate change ) it's likely to be irrelevant as the oceans will probably die.
and mankind hasn't found a safe way to deal with this
I'm pretty sure they know how to deal with it safely, but don't want to pay for it.
Yes, but sad, If the oceans die we all die no more oxygen. About 25 % off the CO2 we emit are absorb by he oceans. The pH value in the seawater decreases which is why corals die. Gradually as the sea becomes more acidic life in the sea will begin to die out. And no one seems to care.
The oxygen level, which was previously 21%, is now close to 20% and is expected to continued decrease.
-
5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:
How many people do you think have been killed by leaks from nuclear plants in the US? I'll give you a hint, it's something less than one.
France gets about 80% off their electricity from nuclear. Do you ever hear of deaths related to nuclear power in France?
I consider the nuclear plants built today as much more safe than the one built 30 - 40 years ago. Japan is located in the ring of fire, and one one can discuss whether it is safe to build nuclear power plants in an earthquake zone. But the accident in Japan was used in Germany as a reason to shut down their nuclear power plants, even though Germany itself is not in a major risk earthquake zone, and at a time when Russia has cut off gas to, among others, Germany, one can ask the question: Was it a wise decision by Germany to close their nuclear power plants with zero Co2 emissions and go back to coal, at a time when Europe has already reached the limit of 1.5 degree increase in the average temperature, or was it simple stupidity?
-
21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:
Simple really. Give a financial incentive for men to have a vasectomy. Way cheaper to the state than sterilizing women.
If I'd been allowed to have a vasectomy I'd have had one in my 20s, but drs won't if a guy hasn't had kids, or at least back then they didn't.
The agenda here is Climate Change
-
17 hours ago, liddelljohn said:
Its a well known scientific fact proven by soil samples and archeology digs that ancient stone age and bronze age Norweigans and Swedes grew and cultivated grapes so those countries must have been warmer 4000 years ago , so climate change has been with us before , look at the 16th century england when the rivers used to freeze solid so they had ice fairs .
You are right, climate change has been here before, and when it comes it happens over thousands of years, you will barely notice it in a lifetime. This time it happens over 100 years.
The Danish artic centre analyses drill samples from the Greenland ice sheet. They state such high concentrations of CO2 as those we have now cannot be measured for the last 800,000 years.
-
23 hours ago, Yellowtail said:
So you agree that use of fossil-fuels allows the world to support a larger population?
I agree that the unrestrained consumption of fossil fuels, will kill most of the worlds population over the next 100 to 200 years
-
On 3/30/2023 at 10:42 AM, KhunLA said:
Is that before or after they accept it from the Americas & Europe?
Being Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise.
Mind boggling for a country that can't manage it's own trash, imports it.
On 3/30/2023 at 10:42 AM, KhunLA said:Is that before or after they accept it from the Americas & Europe?
Being Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise.
Mind boggling for a country that can't manage it's own trash, imports it.
KhunLA you write about trash in Asian rivers: quote: "Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise." quote ended.
Do you think Asia buys other countries' garbage and throws it into the rivers? Because that would be a surprise to me
-
7 hours ago, KhunLA said:
They've had decades to develop and build alternative, safe, renewable sources of energy .... and we all knw why they haven't.
Everyone cries about MMGW/CC, but few do anything about it, just continue to cower & comply as they are told.
Embarrassing actually ... ????
How many dead if we turned off all the fossil fuel plants?
My answer is, not as many as if we don't turn off fossil fuels plants.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Yellowtail said:
If you take an honest look at the curve of your graph, it supports my position.
Look at computer costs, The cost comes down exponentially at first, and then levels out. A computer today, costs about the same (or more) as a computer costed ten years ago, and they are just not that much better.
We often hear claims about how solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuel, but with both solar and wind, you still have to have duplicate capacity in fossil-fuel or nuclear generators. I don't doubt we'll continue to see improvements in solar, but nuclear is clearly a much safer bet if CO2 truly is an existential threat. And again, solar does not work at night, and often does not work during the day.
Unless perovskites PVs will work perpendicular to the sun, how spraying it on windows even work, much less reduce costs? Solar panels already cheaper than a good window.
I agree with you and yes, nuclear is clearly a much safer bet for an alternative energy source.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, KhunLA said:
Is that before or after they accept it from the Americas & Europe?
Being Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise.
Mind boggling for a country that can't manage it's own trash, imports it.
I am familiar with the import problem. What I'm talking about here is what comes from the rivers. The culture needs to be changed; I hope the Asian countries have started information in the schools.
No country should be allowed to export there garbage.
-
5 minutes ago, Misab said:
Wow, you really see the big problems ???? Seriously, plastic waste is a huge problem when it ends up in the ocean, so is CO2, because 1/4 of that ends up in the ocean too and causes the PH to drop, and slowly makes the water more acid, it's one of the reasons our corals are dying. We get 70% of our oxygen from the sea. But never before have we polluted it as much as we do now.
should also mention that many rivers in Asia send plastic and other waste directly into the oceans, and have done so for decades. According to "ourworld¬indata.org/ocean-plastics", 81% of all plastic in the world's oceans comes from the rivers of Asia, of which approximately 1/3 comes from the Philippines
-
2
-
-
20 hours ago, JackGats said:
+ 7 degrees will make parts of the world inhabitable, but it will make other parts habitable again.
Climate change dogma is a catastrophe. It eclipses every other type of much more serious problems (eg plastic waste).
Wow, you really see the big problems ???? Seriously, plastic waste is a huge problem when it ends up in the ocean, so is CO2, because 1/4 of that ends up in the ocean too and causes the PH to drop, and slowly makes the water more acid, it's one of the reasons our corals are dying. We get 70% of our oxygen from the sea. But never before have we polluted it as much as we do now.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
They will be used much more but I doubt they will replace solar energy. My comment was in response to the current forms of larger nuclear reactors. Solar will continue to get cheaper and has the advantage of lower distribution costs (virtually none).
43 minutes ago, ozimoron said:They will be used much more but I doubt they will replace solar energy. My comment was in response to the current forms of larger nuclear reactors. Solar will continue to get cheaper and has the advantage of lower distribution costs (virtually none).
Solar energy and Wind energy are absolutely number 1. But Solar is only efficient in day time. We need to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and small Nuclear plants could be a solution. I know there is still the problem with waste. But as I heard someone say: There are no problems only solutions ????
-
9 hours ago, ozimoron said:
Fukushima. Nuclear waste storage. Ukraine. What's so amazing?
The one I linked to can not be compared to Fukushima these are small nuclear units and much safer. They will most likely be the future energy source
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Misab said:
Her is a quote from;
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs
It might be an alternative to fossil fuels when we talk electricity
What is the status of SMRs?
Both public and private institutions are actively participating in efforts to bring SMR technology to fruition within this decade. Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in May 2020, is producing energy from two 35 MW(e) SMRs. Other SMRs are under construction or in the licensing stage in Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States of America.
More than 70 commercial SMR designs being developed around the world target varied outputs and different applications, such as electricity, hybrid energy systems, heating, water desalinisation and steam for industrial applications. Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed.
look here: https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs
-
Her is a quote from;
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs
It might be an alternative to fossil fuels when we talk electricity
What is the status of SMRs?
Both public and private institutions are actively participating in efforts to bring SMR technology to fruition within this decade. Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in May 2020, is producing energy from two 35 MW(e) SMRs. Other SMRs are under construction or in the licensing stage in Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States of America.
More than 70 commercial SMR designs being developed around the world target varied outputs and different applications, such as electricity, hybrid energy systems, heating, water desalinisation and steam for industrial applications. Though SMRs have lower upfront capital cost per unit, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice once they are deployed.
-
21 hours ago, KhunLA said:
Agree and have seen a couple studies countering the MMGW/CC thing, and always seems to be funded by fossil fuel profiteers.
Have to admit, simply gives the MMGW/CC thingy a lot more credibility, as they continue to discredit it ????
Is, has and will the planet get warmer....
... yes, till the next ice age. Now that is scary.
Is it MM ... maybe
Is it causing CC ... maybe
Do I care ... NO ... just trolling, I'm bored
I'd care if I thought I might live to be 2 or 300 yrs older.
Oh, you should care Reincarnation exist and you will be back in a very hot world ????
-
On 3/26/2023 at 5:37 PM, Yellowtail said:
So you do not have a single example of the propaganda material the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change? Not even one?
If the oil industry is continuously sending out propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few.
Ads that oil companies run praising alternative energy projects they are involved with do not really qualify as "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" do they? If anything, they highlight the danger and show what they are doing to "help".
Lawsuits against oil companies can hardly be considered "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" can they?
Again, please provide a few examples of the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few.
Why should I waste my time on people working for the oil companies or associate companies
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:
What's that got to do with my comment which related to the usually inaccurately quoted "97% of scientists" claim? That's what I disputed, not necessarily whether climate change is a phenomenon.
48 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:What's that got to do with my comment which related to the usually inaccurately quoted "97% of scientists" claim? That's what I disputed, not necessarily whether climate change is a phenomenon.
Not 97% of the worlds scientist but 97 % of climate change scientist. If you don't understand it, I can't help you.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
12 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:An argument that was debunked a long time ago. What you're referring to was a survey of selected scientists and the 97% figure was 97% of those who responded to that survey, that's all, not 97% of all the world's scientists.
Sorry I got a wrong link in, the right one comes here: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
-
1
-
2
Yellow Book
in Thai Visas, Residency, and Work Permits
Posted
Thank you for the information