Is the flooding in Ho Chi Minh City getting worse year by year?

AkaMaverick wrote:

Jim-Minh wrote:

I think the eco-terrorists will lose a lot of their steam as the 2020 election gets closer.

We just had elections in Switzerland.
The Greens have gained enormously.

Very interesting from a study on the vote is:
The Greens and Democrats had the highest proportion of voters with university degrees. The majority of the right-wing and centre-right parties voter have only junior high school qualifications.

This result does not surprise me at all and would probably also apply to other countries.

The situation sounds deplorable...

<<< We just had elections in Switzerland.
The Greens have gained enormously. >>>

They used to burn witches in Salem too.
They decided that was a hoax as well.
In the mean-time, Germany's electricity rates are the highest in the world at $0.33 per KWH after they turned off all their non-polluting, carbon-neutral nuclear power plants.
What kind of education did that take?
And they still have to buy power from other countries when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing...

Jim-Minh wrote:

<<< We just had elections in Switzerland.
The Greens have gained enormously. >>>

They used to burn witches in Salem too.
They decided that was a hoax as well.
In the mean-time, Germany's electricity rates are the highest in the world at $0.33 per KWH after they turned off all their non-polluting, carbon-neutral nuclear power plants.
What kind of education did that take?
And they still have to buy power from other countries when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing...

Haha. Very funny.
There are subsidies or taxation.

Japan, for example, has the fourth most nuclear power plants and is 5 ranks behind Germany in terms of electricity prices.

Typical for right conservatives. One picks in the Internet the information together which fits straight to the own opinion.

I could refute your statement with thorough research, but for that it is too unimportant to have a point at the end.

What I forgot to mention (without research), there are still a few nuclear power plants in operation in Germany.

<<< Japan, for example, has the fourth most nuclear power plants and is 5 ranks behind Germany in terms of electricity prices. >>>

LMAO
All Japan's nuclear plants were closed, or their operations suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's fifty reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on 5 May 2012, leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for the first time since 1970. Only nine reactors have been restarted since.

Germany's was not the only stupid knee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi incident.
Japan has released over 5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the earthquake in 2011.

If it wasn't for fear-mongering about nuclear power, the world wouldn't have anywhere near the problems we have with coal. There is good evidence that 50,000 people die each year from particle pollution from coal-fired plants. And who knows how many die from the radioactive radon released from the burning of coal.

AS of this year, only one cancer death has been attributed to Fukushima Daiichi. 2202 died as a result of the evacuation. I am sure the evacuation death toll would be far less if people weren't educated to be scared to death of nuclear power.

And the witch-burning continues.

And something interesting is happening with regard to CO2. The world is becoming greener by the day. The CO2 is a great fertilizer and the forests and grasslands are reaping great benefits. That fact is not being reported except in scientific journals. It doesn't fit the left's agenda.

Jim-Minh wrote:

<<< Japan, for example, has the fourth most nuclear power plants and is 5 ranks behind Germany in terms of electricity prices. >>>

LMAO
All Japan's nuclear plants were closed, or their operations suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's fifty reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on 5 May 2012, leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for the first time since 1970. Only nine reactors have been restarted since.

Germany's was not the only stupid knee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi incident.
Japan has released over 5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the earthquake in 2011.

If it wasn't for fear-mongering about nuclear power, the world wouldn't have anywhere near the problems we have with coal. There is good evidence that 50,000 people die each year from particle pollution from coal-fired plants. And who knows how many die from the radioactive radon released from the burning of coal.

AS of this year, only one cancer death has been attributed to Fukushima Daiichi. 2202 died as a result of the evacuation. I am sure the evacuation death toll would be far less if people weren't educated to be scared to death of nuclear power.

And the witch-burning continues.

And something interesting is happening with regard to CO2. The world is becoming greener by the day. The CO2 is a great fertilizer and the forests and grasslands are reaping great benefits. That fact is not being reported except in scientific journals. It doesn't fit the left's agenda.

We talked about electricity prices and you shouldn't ignore half the truth.
In Germany, electricity prices have risen steadily since 2001. Since 2013 the increase has even slowed down.

Besides if you do not want to conceal the truth you should not embezzle the whole facts for your own country.

Generation Source    LCOE (2018 $/MWh)
Hydro    39.1
Solar PV    45.7
Wind (onshore)    49.8
Gas Combined Cycle    46.3-67.5
Nuclear    77.5
Biomass    92.2
Coal    98.6-104.3

Nuclear power is much less profitable than solar PV if you calculate correctly.

So please stop being misreported to post.

<<< Besides if you do not want to conceal the truth you should not embezzle the whole facts for your own country. >>>

"My country" has no monopoly on molten-salt-reactors (MSRs). In fact, even though the US invented the technology, China is the leader of all the nations racing to employ it. I have no vested interest in MSRs other than wanting to see the end to the pollution and deadly emissions from coal-fired power plants as well as other inappropriate applications of power technologies.
I owned and profitably operated an electrical engineering consulting firm for 35 years and am now happily retired. But I can still understand the benefits of superior technology and I can see how it can benefit the world. I am willing to discuss PV vs. MSRs on an issue-by-issue basis.

If what you say was true, the world wouldn't have a power problem. And Solyndra wouldn't have been a $500 million dollar scam funded by BO.

Benefits of MSRs:

A 1 GW MSR will fit in a large warehouse, 1 GW of solar needs 3 square miles.
MSRs are walk-away safe, if you don't keep them running they shut down by themselves.
MSRs can't melt down, if they lose their cooling they drain into a fission-proof "safe" tank.
MSRs don't need large containment buildings. They run at near atmospheric pressures.
MSRs don't need giant cooling towers or large quantities of cooling water.
The core of a 1 GW MSR is less than a 9x9x9 meter cube.
Thorium is four times as abundant as uranium and it is 97% utilized as opposed to 0.5% U238.
Thorium MSRs can't be used to make plutonium.

I know that you know almost nothing about your beloved photovoltaics. You tell me how graphene can improve your technology.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.


hahahaha very good

Jim-Minh wrote:

I know that you know almost nothing about your beloved photovoltaics. You tell me how graphene can improve your technology.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

I have worked more than 35 years in the chemical plant construction, oil/gas and energy sector as an electrical engineer and know enough about this topic.

But those who vote the same as you will believe you anyway. So let's end the discussion.

The future will show.

AkaMaverick wrote:

The future will show.

That much is undeniable.   

I've just discovered this to suit the subject.
You can also look further into the future.

https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/ … =kopp_2014

https://vnexpress.net/the-gioi/tp-hcm-c … 05115.html

AkaMaverick wrote:

I've just discovered this to suit the subject.
You can also look further into the future.

https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/ … =kopp_2014

I need to show my wife.  Reason #87 we need to buy land in Da Lat instead of HCMC for retirement.  I really don't like this city.

SteinNebraska wrote:

AkaMaverick wrote:

I've just discovered this to suit the subject.
You can also look further into the future.

https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/ … =kopp_2014

I need to show my wife.  Reason #87 we need to buy land in Da Lat instead of HCMC for retirement.  I really don't like this city.

Dalat was also flooded this year.
https://m.sggpnews.org.vn/nature/weathe … 83095.html

AkaMaverick wrote:

alat was also flooded this year.
https://m.sggpnews.org.vn/nature/weathe … 83095.html

Although unusually heavy rains may be assoiciated with global warming, flooding in Dalat is essentially a weather phenomenon and not related to sea level rise.

However, sea level rise may be worse than originally thought.  Interestingly this article features Vietnam in particular.  It points out that previous estimates were based on satellite photography that measures buildings and treetops as the earth level while the reality is of course quite a bit lower.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … nvironment  I will not be around in 2050 but some of you may be.  Any property south of the Sông Sài Gòn will likely be affected.  One thing that I find frustrating about those who deny that climate change is man-made is that some of them also deny that sea levels are rising.   Regardless of why, that fact seems indisputable.  I do support those who advocate for nuclear power.  If science can perfect fusion, that would be even better. 

On the other side of the argument, the thing that climate change advocates willfully ignore is population growth.  This "elephant in the room" is the real problem.  Half the word population would mean half the carbon release.  Unfortunately the only foreseeable way world population will be cut in half will be very ugly catastrophic events like world war and famine.

THIGV wrote:

AkaMaverick wrote:

alat was also flooded this year.
https://m.sggpnews.org.vn/nature/weathe … 83095.html

Although unusually heavy rains may be assoiciated with global warming, flooding in Dalat is essentially a weather phenomenon and not related to sea level rise.

However, sea level rise may be worse than originally thought.  Interestingly this article features Vietnam in particular.  It points out that previous estimates were based on satellite photography that measures buildings and treetops as the earth level while the reality is of course quite a bit lower.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … nvironment  I will not be around in 2050 but some of you may be.  Any property south of the Sông Sài Gòn will likely be affected.  One thing that I find frustrating about those who deny that climate change is man-made is that some of them also deny that sea levels are rising.   Regardless of why, that fact seems indisputable.  I do support those who advocate for nuclear power.  If science can perfect fusion, that would be even better. 

On the other side of the argument, the thing that climate change advocates willfully ignore is population growth.  This "elephant in the room" is the real problem.  Half the word population would mean half the carbon release.  Unfortunately the only foreseeable way world population will be cut in half will be very ugly catastrophic events like world war and famine.

I agree with you by and large.

But I am against nuclear power because the disposal problem cannot be solved (transporting abroad and "burying" in the ground is not a solution).

Containing population growth is certainly necessary.
However, the respective state must do this, as China has done in the past (but the female babies must be more accepted, otherwise there will be a glaring lack of women like now in China).
But there again religion stands in the way, preventing looser abortion laws and demonizing contraceptives (call for abstinence will hardly work).

My favorite global warming guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MomTtc7 … H8Vqke%3A6

They never burned witches in Salem.

THIGV wrote:

Half the word population would mean half the carbon release.  Unfortunately the only foreseeable way world population will be cut in half will be very ugly catastrophic events like world war and famine.

You know why they talk about carbon tax? Because they couldn't quite get away with calling it oxygen tax... people might twig that it's actually a tax on life itself. Depressing that so many people swallow this junk science and cheer on the extermination of life.

Is there some way of eliminating 3-4 billion people that *isn't* ugly and catastrophic?

Pity the people who advocate mass human death don't put themselves at the front of the queue.

Jim-Minh wrote:

My favorite global warming guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MomTtc7 … H8Vqke%3A6

Thanks for the link, this guy is great.

Brick23 wrote:

Pity the people who advocate mass human death don't put themselves at the front of the queue.

You are failing to distinguish between advocacy and prediction.

THIGV wrote:

Brick23 wrote:

Pity the people who advocate mass human death don't put themselves at the front of the queue.

You are failing to distinguish between advocacy and prediction.

Many parts of the world, regardless of whatever the cause is, are experiencing severe climate change.
This will cause mass migration (a lot of new expats), and  we know rapid population movement often leads to wars. Add the possibility of water wars (seen that in Kashmir) and populations might well be reduced in very unpleasant ways.

I'm going for what I see as the sensible path, that being installing renewables at home to run my air con and lighting. Carbon neural, but saving a lot of cash in a surprisingly short time. The big home systems cost a fortune, but there are far cheaper options that will work happily with not a lot of design work.

THIGV wrote:

Brick23 wrote:

Pity the people who advocate mass human death don't put themselves at the front of the queue.

You are failing to distinguish between advocacy and prediction.

Hogwash. Globalists have been pushing active population reduction for decades, the UN's Agenda 21 being the most famous example, but there are many others. And legions of scientifically illiterate thugs are cheerleading these insane proposals.

My question remains: since rising temperatures and CO2 levels are unequivocally good for life on Earth, what have climate alarmists got against life to such a degree that they're willing to pay extra taxes to help extinguish it?

Fred wrote:

THIGV wrote:

Brick23 wrote:

Pity the people who advocate mass human death don't put themselves at the front of the queue.

You are failing to distinguish between advocacy and prediction.

Many parts of the world, regardless of whatever the cause is, are experiencing severe climate change.
This will cause mass migration (a lot of new expats), and  we know rapid population movement often leads to wars. Add the possibility of water wars (seen that in Kashmir) and populations might well be reduced in very unpleasant ways.

I'm going for what I see as the sensible path, that being installing renewables at home to run my air con and lighting. Carbon neural, but saving a lot of cash in a surprisingly short time. The big home systems cost a fortune, but there are far cheaper options that will work happily with not a lot of design work.

Electricity prices in Vietnam have risen by an average of 6% over the last 10 years.
My 6kW solar system will pay for itself in about 7 years.
I am also protected against power failures for up to 10 hours.
And besides it is fun to do something against environmental pollution and to become more independent from third parties.

People who are only because of their residues ideology against everything that has to do with renewable energy, are in my eyes only one thing: Extremely stupid.

Brick23 wrote:

THIGV wrote:

Brick23 wrote:

Pity the people who advocate mass human death don't put themselves at the front of the queue.

You are failing to distinguish between advocacy and prediction.

Hogwash. Globalists have been pushing active population reduction for decades, the UN's Agenda 21 being the most famous example, but there are many others. And legions of scientifically illiterate thugs are cheerleading these insane proposals.

My question remains: since rising temperatures and CO2 levels are unequivocally good for life on Earth, what have climate alarmists got against life to such a degree that they're willing to pay extra taxes to help extinguish it?

Not only will people die because of global warming, they will also face the border of your country.
It is bad enough that you accept that millions of people die because of climate warming.
It's the same as if you were looking forward to the next world war.
I could puke. Shame on you.

How much pollution caused by humans contributes to global warming can be discussed.
But global warming and its consequences are facts.

An intelligent human being uses the resulting new conditions and pushes new technology with renewable energy sources (Elon Musk who made the automotive industry rethink is such a visionary).

Europe and China have seen the trend and will leave countries like America (which rely on fracking and continue to put gas-guzzling monsters) far behind in this technology. It doesn't help that America taxes the foreign cars because the cause of the import surplus is the better and more innovative quality of the imported cars.

The rethinking of the car industry (by the visionary Musk) promotes research on alternatives to the internal combustion engine outside America.
And China (and Europe) will play a leading role here, even though America wants to prevent this with the customs war.

It could all be so easy if there weren't those narrow-minded objectors.

AkaMaverick wrote:

Brick23 wrote:

THIGV wrote:

You are failing to distinguish between advocacy and prediction.

Hogwash. Globalists have been pushing active population reduction for decades, the UN's Agenda 21 being the most famous example, but there are many others. And legions of scientifically illiterate thugs are cheerleading these insane proposals.

My question remains: since rising temperatures and CO2 levels are unequivocally good for life on Earth, what have climate alarmists got against life to such a degree that they're willing to pay extra taxes to help extinguish it?

Not only will people die because of global warming, they will also face the border of your country.
It is bad enough that you accept that millions of people die because of climate warming.
It's the same as if you were looking forward to the next world war.
I could puke. Shame on you.

Except that when you look at the entirety of the data available, instead of just cherry-picking the bits that suit you, there is no evidence of man-made global warming. None. Now common sense tells me that of course we have an impact on our environment as a species, but it's so negligible that we cannot distinguish it from statistical noise.

To then suggest that curtailing our freedoms and forking over yet more of our hard-earned to governments, almost by definition the most useless, incompetent, corrupt and inefficient organisations ever devised, we can effect the climate of the planet in a 'positive' way is ludicrous, given that a hundred plus years of heavy industry have had such a negligible effect that we cannot even accurately measure it.

Clearly we can, should and slowly are making more use of renewable energy sources. There's a giant ball of fire in the sky that puts out all the energy we'll ever likely need if we can figure out how to efficiently harness it... but hysterical hand flapping and calling for the eradication of billions of human lives based on bogus pseudoscience is pathetic.

You'll puke if you ever learn to think for yourself and take the time to look at all the actual data, after realising how much zombie propaganda you've swallowed.

^ I'm sorry that I can only like that post once.

<<< Brick23
"Except that when you look at the entirety of the data available, instead of just cherry-picking the bits that suit you, there is no evidence of man-made global warming. None. Now common sense tells me that of course we have an impact on our environment as a species, but it's so negligible that we cannot distinguish it from statistical noise.

To then suggest that curtailing our freedoms and forking over yet more of our hard-earned to governments, almost by definition the most useless, incompetent, corrupt and inefficient organisations ever devised, we can effect the climate of the planet in a 'positive' way is ludicrous, given that a hundred plus years of heavy industry have had such a negligible effect that we cannot even accurately measure it.

Clearly we can, should and slowly are making more use of renewable energy sources. There's a giant ball of fire in the sky that puts out all the energy we'll ever likely need if we can figure out how to efficiently harness it... but hysterical hand flapping and calling for the eradication of billions of human lives based on bogus pseudoscience is pathetic.

You'll puke if you ever learn to think for yourself and take the time to look at all the actual data, after realizing how much zombie propaganda you've swallowed.>>>

That is so well said. That is beyond what I considered to be the mentality of what I have seen here. The calls for people to revert to a 19th-century lifestyle for purely political reasons is absolutely absurd. Our sea-level rise has been 2.8 mm per year for many centuries. For the politicians to suddenly claim that we will never see snow in Colorado again, or never any more rain in northern Australia, or that Maimi will be underwater soon, or that there will be millions of "climate refugees" by 2001 is patently absurd.
And our dependence on fossil fuels is a direct result of the anti-nuclear eco-fascists of the last century. My God, people, wake up. YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED.

Show us all these "globalists", and show that they are advocating for killing people.

Your claim of cherry-picking is bull, and I highly doubt that you've personally analyzed all the data.

Brick23 wrote:

Pity the people who advocate mass human death don't put themselves at the front of the queue.

I sincerely hope that you understand the difference between predicting something and advocating for it.  I can predict that the NY Yankees will win the World Series or that Manchester City will win the Champions League but that doesn't mean that I want either thing to happen.