Bangkok morning turns to night - it's climate change as top Thai scientist warns of more "extreme weather"

[coolcarer]

4 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Science is about numbers. If you don't understand that you don't understand science.

 

 

Science also relies on observation not just numbers

Edited August 31, 2022 by coolcarer

[coolcarer]

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

Holland?

What about Holland?

 

Lengthy up to date article here on what they are doing...

 

The Netherlands and its biggest challenge: Stopping sea level rise

"Sea levels are rising, the ground is sinking and floods have become a constant threat.

 

Scientists stopped wondering about whether the Netherlands would disappear a long time ago – now the question is when.

 

Forecasts are pessimistic, as about one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level."

 

https://esthinktank.com/2021/04/06/the-netherlands-and-its-biggest-challenge-stopping-sea-level-rise/

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by onthedarkside
shortened for fair use

[Kwaibill]

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

Look at the facts not hype. There is no 10m high sea rises.

The facts indicate a potential 70 meter rise in global sea levels. 10 meters could be achieved long before via storms, tsunamis, etc. This from the US Geological Survey:

 

How would sea level change if all glaciers melted?

 

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted.

 

Sea level rise, explained

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1#:~:text=Consequences,fish%2C birds%2C and plants.

 

 

 

Global habitability is affected by more than the static average increase of sea levels. And yes, a modest sea level rise could very easily result in water reaching the fifth story in circumstances aggravated by other effects of climate change dynamics, e.g. storm surges, catastrophic rainfall events, broken dams, etc., especially in low elevation areas like Bangkok which is already experiencing increased flooding problems, admittedly due in part to other human lack of control ( obliteration of natural drainage, etc., by overbuildkng)

[Sparktrader]

5 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Science also relies on observation not just numbers

Numbers are used to measure science. When people say the numbers dont matter I know they arent discussing science.

 

Math is the only pure science.

[Sparktrader]

2 minutes ago, Kwaibill said:

The facts indicate a potential 70 meter rise in global sea levels. 10 meters could be achieved long before via storms, tsunamis, etc. This from the US Geological Survey:

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted.

 Non Solis sed etsiam:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1#:~:text=Consequences,fish%2C birds%2C and plants.

 

Global habitability is affected by more than the static average increase of sea levels. And yes, a modest sea level rise could very easily result in water reaching the fifth story in circumstances aggravated by other effects of climate change dynamics, e.g. storm surges, catastrophic rainfall events, broken dams, etc., especially in low elevation areas like Bangkok which is already experiencing increased flooding problems, admittedly due in part to other human lack of control ( obliteration of natural drainage, etc., by overbuildkng)

70m ?

 

Gee.

 

The reality is somewhat different.

 

 

Today, global sea level is 5-8 inches (13-20 cm) higher on average than it was in 1900. Between 1900 and 2000, global sea level rose between 0.05 inches (1.2 millimeters) and 0.07 inches (1.7 millimeters) per year on average. In the 1990s, that rate jumped to around 3.2 millimeters per year.

 

https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise

 

[Sparktrader]

3.2mm per year is 3.2cm in 10 years.

 

In 80 years that's 10.16 inches less than a foot long sub.

 

I dont know where people get 70 metres from but I wouldnt trust anyone who says stuff like that.

 

 

[n00dle]

On 8/30/2022 at 2:31 PM, Photoguy21 said:

The climate is always changing but it isnt the world disaster you appear to think it is.

 

said t-rex to brontosaurus

Edited August 31, 2022 by n00dle

[Kwaibill]

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It really doesn't matter what the numbers are, the evidence is now plaint o see and it's catastrophic, already. Only fools and the corrupt think this is a natural cycle and that the extremes in temperatures and climate will go away.

Besides, the models are not "wrong". A range is an absolute variable, not a definitive solution. There is no "right or wrong" in an estimate.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

3.2mm per year is 3.2cm in 10 years.

 

In 80 years that's 10.16 inches less than a foot long sub.

 

I dont know where people get 70 metres from but I wouldnt trust anyone who says stuff like that.

 

 

You don't believe NOAA and NASA, among thousands of others?

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Numbers are used to measure science. When people say the numbers dont matter I know they arent discussing science.

 

Math is the only pure science.

Observational science with theory but without numbers can be just as credible, I’m a science teacher and perform these tasks regularly in experiments. 
 

Maths based science is also extremely important for other projects. A combination of both is used in climate models, maths and observation for evidence

[Sparktrader]

Just now, ozimoron said:

You don't believe NOAA and NASA, among thousands of others?

I believe facts. I posted the facts. I would you study the facts.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Kwaibill said:

Besides, the models are not "wrong". A range is an absolute variable, not a definitive solution. There is no "right or wrong" in an estimate.

Yep, the denier talking point is that if scientists can't nail the numbers down to 0.01 (a number for illustration) degree then they have no idea.

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

among thousands of others?

There arent thousands of others. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Sparktrader said:

I believe facts. I posted the facts. I would you study the facts.

NOAA and NASA don't post facts? Again, do you believe them or not? If you're going to make a contrary stand, lets find out exactly where you stand on the world's premier climate change authorities.

[Sparktrader]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Yep, the denier talking point is that if scientists can't nail the numbers down to 0.01 (a number for illustration) degree then they have no idea.

Wrong. I worked in statistics. If models are wrong by wide margins then the models are junk.

 

You keep denying the facts, which makes you the denier.

[Sparktrader]

Just now, ozimoron said:

NOAA and NASA don't post facts? Again, do you believe them or not? If you're going to make a contrary stand, lets find out exactly where you stand on the world's premier climate change authorities.

I posted the facts. 3.2mm pa sea level rise.

 

https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

There arent thousands of others. 

Every single government accredited scientific agency and every single university on the planet is more than thousands.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Sparktrader said:

I posted the facts. 3.2mm pa sea level rise.

 

https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise

Big swerve you made right there. Unwilling to declare whether you believe NOAA and NASA?

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Wrong. I worked in statistics. If models are wrong by wide margins then the models are junk.

 

You keep denying the facts, which makes you the denier.

I still work in statistics. The models are not wrong by "wide" margins. You have not produced any of the numbers you claim. I cite NOAA and NASA to feel certain that climate change is real and that it's a world crisis. You cite nothing.

[Sparktrader]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Big swerve you made right there. Unwilling to declare whether you believe NOAA and NASA?

I believe facts not forecasts. You believe forecasts and ignore the facts.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Sparktrader said:

I believe facts not forecasts. You believe forecasts and ignore the facts.

NOAA and NASA have lots of facts as well as forecasts. That's why I believe them.

[Sparktrader]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I still work in statistics. The models are not wrong by "wide" margins. You have not produced any of the numbers you claim. I cite NOAA and NASA to feel certain that climate change is real and that it's a world crisis. You cite nothing.

Anyone who does modelling would know a 37.5% overestimate is pretty bad.

 

You haven't cited anything.

 

Name 10 scientists who got forecasts right over 20 or 30 years within 15% accuracy.

[Sparktrader]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

NOAA and NASA have lots of facts as well as forecasts. That's why I believe them.

Yes you said many times yet no warming for 6 years.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/climate/hottest-year-ever.html

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Sparktrader

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Anyone who does modelling would know a 37.5% overestimate is pretty bad.

 

You haven't cited anything.

 

Name 10 scientists who got forecasts right over 20 or 30 years within 15% accuracy.

I cited the NOAA and NASA websites. If I had read nothing else, that would easily be enough more me. As it happens, I have read plenty but I have never read any credible research which contradicts what they say.

 

If you look back at forecasts you can see that models are not accurate which is bigly different from saying they are wrong. You would have been one of those hanging Copernicus a thousand years ago.

Edited August 31, 2022 by ozimoron

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Yes you said many times yet no warming for 6 years.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/climate/hottest-year-ever.html

 

 

 

The trend is very important if you're not taking that into account then you are missing what has happened since 1970

 

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

I cited the NOAA and NASA websites. If I had read nothing else, that would easily be enough more me. As it happens, I have read plenty but I have never read any credible research which contradicts what they say.

 

If you look back at forecasts you can see that models are not accurate which is bigly different from saying they are wrong. You would have been one of those hanging Copernicus a thousand years ago.

Yes Ive read those websites. So far we have a list of 1 scientist who did an accurate model.

 

If the science was agreed upon there would be no need for dozens of models. It just proves they don't know.

 

F = ma.

 

If you don't know the formula you cannot produce an accurate model.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

The trend is very important if you're not taking that into account then you are missing what has happened since 1970

 

What happened between 1880 and 1910?

[Sparktrader]

Just now, Sparktrader said:

The trend is very important if

Yes it is. 6 years no warming. Why?

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

What happened between 1880 and 1910?

Your article does not cover that, I was pointing out your claim that was not in context with the chart trend, perhaps you can acknowledge that first then go onto providing some information on 1880 to 1910

Edited August 31, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[onthedarkside]

Several posts with unsourced and/or unsubstantiated claims, and unsourced images and graphics, have been removed. Also some bickering and off-topic exchanges between members.