How is global warming affecting Thailand these days?

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Or solar farmers rent land from growing farmers, farmers keep the dirt and also save solar farmers for keeping the farms from overgrowing of weed and trees. 
 

Benefit both parties. 

In Australia they have found that sheep produce better quality wool when grazed in paddocks with solar panels.

 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-05-30/solar-farm-grazing-sheep-agriculture-renewable-energy-review/101097364

Edited May 31, 2022 by ozimoron

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, Baron Samedi said:

There is no scientific consensus on that study.

Science isnt about consensus. Its science not politics. Anything could happen in 2035. I dont know. Nobody does. Cant predict the future.

 

 

[Lemsta69]

2 hours ago, Baron Samedi said:

Didnt know the AseanNow forum was the equivalent of Qanon for Asia. Get yourself an education. Please.

"Qanon for Asia"? nah mate, it's not that good! ????

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Science isnt about consensus. Its science not politics. Anything could happen in 2035. I dont know. Nobody does. Cant predict the future.

That's garbage. Science and statistics can extrapolate from data to measure stuff like atmospheric CO2, temperatures, sea levels and ocean acidity with a high degree of accuracy

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge

 

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/predictions-future-global-climate

Edited May 31, 2022 by ozimoron

[Baron Samedi]

3 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Science isnt about consensus.

 

Give that man a cookie and a glass of milk ????????????

[Sparktrader]

22 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

Give that man a cookie and a glass of milk ????????????

Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head.”  

 

— Albert Einstein

[Sparktrader]

  https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=126069

 

1500 year cycle

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

  https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=126069

 

1500 year cycle

cyclical pressure pattern could combine with man-made climate change to exacerbate severe weather and flooding trends.

 

[Baron Samedi]

21 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head.”  

 

— Albert Einstein

 

Science is all about consensus.

 

The idea behind the scientific method is simple:

1) a scientist comes up with an hypothesis,

2) that scientist tries to refute it,

3) then his/her colleagues try to refute it too,

4) and then, if nobody is successful, they all agree that the hypothesis can be considered a valid theory.

 

There is no truth in science, only consensus.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

cyclical pressure pattern could combine with man-made climate change to exacerbate severe weather and flooding trends.

 

 Separating the effects of human contributions to climate variability from those due to natural variability is never easy," he said. "Darby and his colleagues, using clever analyses of sediment data, have noted an important long-term variation in sediment transport that is consistent with variability in the Arctic climate on similar time scales. This work adds one more piece of information to our understanding of a very complex system."

[Sparktrader]

12 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

Science is all about consensus.

The idea behind the scientific method is simple:

1) a scientist comes up with an hypothesis,

2) that scientist tries to refute it,

3) then his/her colleagues try to refute it too,

4) and then, if nobody is successful, they all agree that the hypothesis can be considered a valid theory (not a truth - there is no truth in science)

This is what is called a scientific consensus.

 

 

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

 

Crichton

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

 

Crichton

So, you're trying to suggest that scientists can't reach a consensus and if they do then that consensus isn't valid and carries no weight?

 

This is completely illogical.

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So, you're trying to suggest that scientists can't reach a consensus and if they do then that consensus isn't valid?

 

This is completely illogical.

Science by consensus ........

The world is flat.

You'll fall off the edge if you sail too far.

The sun circles the earth.

Man will never fly.

Man will never reach the moon.

 

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

So, you're trying to suggest that scientists can't reach a consensus and if they do then that consensus isn't valid?

 

This is completely illogical.

Science is about 2 things

1 constant learning

2 establishing facts that are provable ie the sun is a certain distance from the earth or e= mc squared or f=ma

 

Theories are fine but a theory is just a theory. 

 

History has proven many theories wrong.

 

[Baron Samedi]

12 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

 

Crichton

Crichton is talking about opinion-based consensus.

Science is about fact-based consensus.

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Science by consensus ........

The world is flat.

You'll fall off the edge if you sail too far.

The sun circles the earth.

Man will never fly.

Man will never reach the moon.

 

Correct. Most theories held by masses all proven wrong.

 

Time is the best way to test a theory. In 1850 who thought planes would work? In 1940 who thought the internet would exist?

 

In 2050 a lot of beliefs now will be proven wrong.

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Science by consensus ........

The world is flat.

You'll fall off the edge if you sail too far.

The sun circles the earth.

Man will never fly.

Man will never reach the moon.

 

No scientist ever said any of those things and the statements predate the era of modern science.

Edited May 31, 2022 by ozimoron

[onthedarkside]

A post linking to a pseudoscience website with a history of misinformation has been removed.

 

[Sparktrader]

Just now, Baron Samedi said:

Crichton is talking about opinion-based consensus.

Science is about fact-based consensus.

Consensus is opinion not fact. 

 

Bangkok to Chiang Mai is ... km fact

 

You dont ask 100 Thais how far it is, you look at a map.

[Baron Samedi]

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Science by consensus ........

The world is flat.

You'll fall off the edge if you sail too far.

The sun circles the earth.

Man will never fly.

Man will never reach the moon.

 

Scientific consensus would actually refute all those assertions.

[Sparktrader]

https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, Baron Samedi said:

Scientific consensus would actually refute all those assertions.

Ok then. Show me one scientific paper that proves how much of climate change is natural and how much is man.

 

Show me how much Thailand has warmed due to nature and how much due to man.

 

If you have the science I would like to see it.

[Baron Samedi]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Consensus is opinion not fact. 

 

This is where you make a mistake.

A consensus just means a general agreement.

That general agreement can be made on opinions or facts.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

October 2019

Report: Flooded Future: Global vulnerability to sea level rise worse than previously understood

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• As a result of heat-trapping pollution from human activities, rising sea levels could within three decades push chronic floods higher than land currently home to 300 million people 

• By 2100, areas now home to 200 million people could fall permanently below the high tide line

...

• The threat is concentrated in coastal Asia and could have profound economic and political consequences within the lifetimes of people alive today 

• Findings are documented in a new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Nature Communications

 

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-flooded-future-global-vulnerability-to-sea-level-rise-worse-than-previously-understood

 

 

"Overall, we rate Climate Central Left-Center Biased and pro-science based on adherence to the consensus of science with climate change. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record."

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-central/

 

[Baron Samedi]

3 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Ok then. Show me one scientific paper that proves how much of climate change is natural and how much is man.

 

Show me how much Thailand has warmed due to nature and how much due to man.

 

If you have the science I would like to see it.

How about you read the last IPCC report ????

https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

[StreetCowboy]

5 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Ok then. Show me one scientific paper that proves how much of climate change is natural and how much is man.

 

Show me how much Thailand has warmed due to nature and how much due to man.

 

If you have the science I would like to see it.

We are lucky to have guys like you on this forum who can sort the wheat from the chaff, otherwise we’d have to rely upon the scientists and academics that we employ.

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, Baron Samedi said:

How about you read the last IPCC report ????

https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

Thats not proof. Thats just estimates and models.

[Sparktrader]

6 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

This is where you make a mistake.

A consensus just means a general agreement.

That general agreement can be made on opinions or facts.

Ok then what exact % of cc is man?

 

Show me 100 scientists who agree on the %

[Sparktrader]

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9af7

 

Peer reviewed paper on model errors

[StreetCowboy]

15 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Correct. Most theories held by masses all proven wrong.

 

Time is the best way to test a theory. In 1850 who thought planes would work? In 1940 who thought the internet would exist?

 

In 2050 a lot of beliefs now will be proven wrong.

Maybe global warming will be one of them.  And maybe deep sea fishermen in places that are now mountains might rue the profligacy of their ancestors.  I’d rather play safe, but then I have children.