How is global warming affecting Thailand these days?

[Sparktrader]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

China also engages in all kinds of, let's be modest to say, unsavory conduct in a variety of fields... Not sure you really want to be using them as your yardstick.

 

China is 33% of global mm co2 output. Up 4.8% in 1 year.

 

Lecturing farangs or Thais wont do a thing.

 

The theory might even turn out to be weak. Nobody knows.

 

Oceans full of plastic in Thailand. Flood mitigation is poor. Deforestation is a problem. Those are real issues Thais can control.

 

Thais cant control the climate.

[Sparktrader]

4 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

And I posted the link to the entire IPCC report and here I can add the link to the CIA forecast report for 2040. Enjoy.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/gt2040-structural-forces/environment

Forecasts are guesses not facts. If people could predict the future they would be billionaires.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, StreetCowboy said:

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.

Oddly enough I was one of those "scientists and academics" but I was employed by the British government so you might not consider them  "we". 

Edited May 31, 2022 by BritManToo

[Sparktrader]

The IPCC was slow to react to news that its 2007 report contained an error-riddled paragraph that said, among other things, that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Although the group eventually issued a statement admitting the error, the head of one of the IPCC's three scientific working groups said making a "more definitive fix" has been a challenge.

"Even though everyone recognizes 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-error-correction-moves-at-glacial-speed/

[Sparktrader]

 https://www.ipcc-data.org/syn/tar_scatter/csiro_error.html

 

IPCC using incorrect temp data

 

 

[Baron Samedi]

18 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Forecasts are guesses not facts. If people could predict the future they would be billionaires.

Same as the climate models. Nobody says they are perfect but they are based on the best knowledge available (facts) and are showing us that we are headed in the wrong direction.

[Hummin]

37 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Lanta beaches low season. Covered in glass and plastic. Go have a look.

 

 

When we will replace humans with robots, then the super powers do not need people of flesh and blood anymore who eat crops and meat ???? Superpowers for now need growt of population to keep their power, but that will change soon, and no more people from lower class or middle class to work. needed. 
 

The whole world will be like The Emirates, but the difference is robots doing the work, and not Indians or other asians on slevery contracts. 

[Baron Samedi]

20 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

The IPCC was slow to react to news that its 2007 report contained an error-riddled paragraph that said, among other things, that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Although the group eventually issued a statement admitting the error, the head of one of the IPCC's three scientific working groups said making a "more definitive fix" has been a challenge.

"Even though everyone recognizes 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-error-correction-moves-at-glacial-speed/

Again: cherry picking.

 

[Sparktrader]

2 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

Same as the climate models. Nobody says they are perfect but they are based on the best knowledge available (facts) and are showing us that we are headed in the wrong direction.

Yet as I showed the previous models were wrong. 

 

And we is? China and Indonesia is ramping up coal.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

2 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

Again: cherry picking.

 

Pointing out errors???

 

Not cherry picking. Stating facts. Models wrong, glaciers wrong.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

 http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#:~:text=For most crops the saturation,well as for lettuce production.

 

500 to 800ppm is ideal for plants

 

Current levels are low.

[Sparktrader]

 For lower-troposphere and midtroposphere layers both globally and in the tropics, all 38 models overpredict warming in every target observational analog, in most cases significantly so, and the average differences between models and observations are statistically significant

 

 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001281

 

(Another peer reviewed paper shows models wrong

[Baron Samedi]

49 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Yet as I showed the previous models were wrong. 

 

And we is? China and Indonesia is ramping up coal.

 

 

Models are imperfect but not enough to change the scientific consensus which is that we have a serious problem of global warming. But I agree models have to be perfected.

 

48 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Pointing out errors???

 

Not cherry picking. Stating facts. Models wrong, glaciers wrong.

 

 

Of course you are cherry picking. For every article pointing out errors in the work of the scientific community you have a thousand confirming scientists worse fears.

Search by yourself:

https://libgen.rs/

https://3lib.net/

 

43 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

 http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#:~:text=For most crops the saturation,well as for lettuce production.

 

500 to 800ppm is ideal for plants

 

Current levels are low.

Whatever we do we'll be well above 500ppm. Don't worry for your lettuce.
That specific post shows how childish you are and how you constantly cherry pick to reach erroneous holistic conclusions that fit your opinions.

 

41 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

 For lower-troposphere and midtroposphere layers both globally and in the tropics, all 38 models overpredict warming in every target observational analog, in most cases significantly so, and the average differences between models and observations are statistically significant

 

 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001281

 

(Another peer reviewed paper shows models wrong

Again. Sometimes models overpredict and sometimes they underpredict.

Doesn't mean they are completely wrong and that we should through them away.

An example of underprediction here (Arctic melting quicker than predicted): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0860-7

Edited May 31, 2022 by Baron Samedi

[Sparktrader]

26 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

Models are imperfect but not enough to change the scientific consensus which is that we have a serious problem of global warming. But I agree models have to be perfected.

 

Of course you are cherry picking. For every article pointing out errors in the work of the scientific community you have a thousand confirming scientists worse fears.

Search by yourself:

https://libgen.rs/

https://3lib.net/

 

Whatever we do we'll be well above 500ppm. Don't worry for your lettuce.
That specific post shows how childish you are and how you constantly cherry pick to reach erroneous holistic conclusions that fit your opinions.

 

Again. Sometimes models overpredict and sometimes they underpredict.

Doesn't mean they are completely wrong and that we should through them away.

An example of underprediction here (Arctic melting quicker than predicted): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0860-7

Posting facts isnt childish. One paper showed all 38 models wrong. Thats bad modelling and bad science.

 

Science is about accurate data not consensus. 

 

I dont see a problem with warming. Been zero for 6 years. 2016 was the hottest. Cooled since by 0.3 degrees according to NOAA.

 

Regardless I dont see what your point is.  China is ramping up co2. They arent listenining to you.

 

What do you hope to achieve???

 

Ive studied climate for 20 years. Forgotten more than most will ever know. Im not concerned.

 

There is nothing Thailand can do about climate.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

35 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

Sometimes models overpredict and sometimes they underpredict.

Not correct. The papers only found overpredictions.

 

That means

 

1 their assumptions are wrong

2 their future predictions will be too high as well

 

Plus unless China does something which they wont it doesnt matter.

 

Chinese co2 up 14.4% in 5.5 years. Temps down 0.3 degrees.

 

No models have predicted that.

[Sparktrader]

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

 

Thai 0.76% of world.

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-briefing-17-march-2022-beijing-doubling-down-on-fossil-fuels-chinas-co2-emissions-increase-coal-production-growth/

 

China not worried about co2 going up.

 

No link?

 

China is the world's largest investor in green technology.  You're citing discredited hacks and spreading misinformation like the above lie.

 

https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-renewable-energy

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

No link?

 

China is the world's largest investor in green technology.  You're citing discredited hacks and spreading misinformation like the above lie.

 

https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-renewable-energy

I posted the link. All sources say China co2 going up.

[Sparktrader]

   https://www.iea.org/news/global-co2-emissions-rebounded-to-their-highest-level-in-history-in-2021

 

 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/carbon-co2-emissions

 

11.9 vs 9.8 

 

21% increase. Even worse.

[Sparktrader]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You're citing discredited hacks and spreading misinformation like the above lie.

False. I quoted peer reviewed papers and posted facts.

 

 

[Baron Samedi]

28 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Posting facts isnt childish. One paper showed all 38 models wrong. Thats bad modelling and bad science.

 

Science is about accurate data not consensus. 

 

I dont see a problem with warming. Been zero for 6 years. 2016 was the hottest. Cooled since by 0.3 degrees according to NOAA.

 

Regardless I dont see what your point is.  China is ramping up co2. They arent listenining to you.

 

What do you hope to achieve???

 

Ive studied climate for 20 years. Forgotten more than most will ever know. Im not concerned.

 

There is nothing Thailand can do about climate.

 

 

1) Using a study on lettuce to try and make a point about global warming is probably the dumbest thing I've read in my life.

2) Data interpretation is based on consensus.

3) You haven't studied global warming for 20 years. Not even 20 minutes ????

 

22 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Not correct. The papers only found overpredictions.

 

What's the point of me writing if you don't read ? I posted a link with a paper showing the underprediction regarding the speed at which the Arctic is melting.

 

16 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

 

Thai 0.76% of world.

It doesn't really matter. Global warming is global. Thailand could be net zero already, it wouldn't change a thing to the fact that the country will have to adapt to a changing environment.

[Sparktrader]

2 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

1) Using a study on lettuce to try and make a point about global warming is probably the dumbest thing I've read in my life.

2) Data interpretation is based on consensus.

3) You haven't studied global warming for 20 years. Not even 20 minutes ????

 

What's the point of me writing if you don't read ? I posted a link with a paper showing the underprediction regarding the speed at which the Arctic is melting.

 

It doesn't really matter. Global warming is global. Thailand could be net zero already, it wouldn't change a thing to the fact that the country will have to adapt to a changing environment.

Ive studied the data since early 2000s. I'm not worried.

 

If you are tell China.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

5 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

What's the point of me writing if you don't read ? I posted a link with a paper showing the underprediction regarding the speed at which the Arctic is melting

https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice

 

Expanding down south.

 

Why cherry pick the north?

 

Bad science.

[ozimoron]

23 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

I posted the link. All sources say China co2 going up.

How does that translate to the non sequiter "China doesn't care about emissions."?

[ozimoron]

Just now, Sparktrader said:

Co2 up 21% in 5 years. Actions speak louder than words.

 

Do some research on the topic instead of posting abuse.

I know exactly why China's emissions are rising. It's related to the speed of their economy. I also know that they have pledged to have zero net emissions by 2060.

 

You still haven't shown that China doesn't care.

[Baron Samedi]

23 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Ive studied the data since early 2000s. I'm not worried.

 

If you are tell China.

 

 

Don't make me laugh.

 

21 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice

 

Expanding down south.

 

Why cherry pick the north?

 

Bad science.

My point was to show you that models sometimes underpredict too. Even if it doesn't fit your agenda. And you are absolutely right it would be cherry picking if I was trying to use that one study to demonstrate that all models were underpredicting all the time. The kind of dishonest stunt that you keep pulling btw...

Edited May 31, 2022 by Scott

[Sparktrader]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

also know that they have pledged to have zero net emissions by 2060.

Just words. China's record on anything isnt good. Anyone can make promises for 40 years time. These current leaders will be dead.

 

Actions always speak louder than words.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Study on plants. All plants prefer 500ppm+ co2

 

Current levels are low. Plants die under 150ppm.

You're intent on not providing links to evidence for your misinformation.

 

High CO2 levels cause plants to thicken their leaves, which could worsen climate change effects, researchers say

 

https://www.washington.edu/news/2018/10/01/thick-leaves-high-co2/

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

 

 

 

[Sparktrader]

5 minutes ago, Baron Samedi said:

was trying to use that one study to demonstrate that all models were underpredicting all the time.

Show me studies predicting less warming. You cant cause they dont exist.

 

Cherry picking some Artic ice thing has nothing to do with temperature models.

 

Ive studied this stuff for 20 years. Im not worried.

 

The facts dont match the scare. 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Just words. China's record on anything isnt good. Anyone can make promises for 40 years time. These current leaders will be dead.

 

Actions always speak louder than words.

And the action is the world's largest investor in green tech.