3 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

You might also consider that the scientist who wants to study the reduced flow in Tibetanian rivers get funding, while the poor guy who wants to study the benefits of hydrocarbon production, gets nothing.

You are comparing the salaries of scientists vs oil company employees.

 

This is a trope among less well informed posters, that Global Warming is just a scheme to enrich graduate students.

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are comparing the salaries of scientists vs oil company employees.

 

This is a trope among less well informed posters, that Global Warming is just a scheme to enrich graduate students.

You are grouping oil field working together with Global Warming PhD scientists, THANKS!.

Deep down behind our rough looks and faul language, I knew we were smart people.

Unless of course your are saying that the warming scientists are a bunch of idiots ???? ??????

6 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

You are grouping oil field working together with Global Warming PhD scientists, THANKS!.

Deep down behind our rough looks and faul language, I knew we were smart people.

Unless of course your are saying that the warming scientists are a bunch of idiots ???? ??????

No, I am saying that oil company employees make more money than scientists in universities. 

28 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It hasn't happened yet, and all the big boys are spending millions on beachfront estates. 

This again? Obama's beachfront house is 13 metres above sea level.

8 hours ago, BritManToo said:

 

 

The satellite readings post 1979 are questionable as they've changed the satellite measuring equipment 3x since 

You don't seem to understand the concept of calibration. 

 

If you don't know how things work, then you don't trust the results. Which makes you think scientists are idiots.

 

 

I would bet money that, if you were in charge, you could figure out a way to make sure that temperature measurements could me made valid across decades.

 

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

No, I am saying that oil company employees make more money than scientists in universities. 

That is just because we are smarter.

If you are interested, I can actually prove to you with 100% certainty that Global warming will NOT cause any significant sea level rise.

 

Why will the 2 sides never agree on this?   Because most humans are either 

Malthusians or Cornucopians.  

 

Malthusian environmental philosophy:  Global warming/climate change has been the indirect or direct cause of death of many people already, and will get worse

Famine and starvation is increasing in many parts of the world.  Malnutrition as well as disease, infection, etc... in poor countries.  All related to overpopulation and limited resources as a result of overpopulation and climate change (soil erosion, droughts)

 

The simplistic opposing Cornucopian viewpoint:  environmental problems faced by society either do not exist or can be solved by technology or the free market.

 

Interesting fact: Over half of all scientists work in the field of saving human lives (medical industry)  or building/designing weapons of war  (Military industrial complex) ....how incongruous is that? 

 

11 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

That is just because we are smarter.

If you are interested, I can actually prove to you with 100% certainty that Global warming will NOT cause any significant sea level rise.

 

It already has.

27 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You don't seem to understand the concept of calibration. 

 

If you don't know how things work, then you don't trust the results. Which makes you think scientists are idiots.

 

 

I would bet money that, if you were in charge, you could figure out a way to make sure that temperature measurements could me made valid across decades.

 

I figured out how to generate 80% of my household electricity. 

 

What's your contribution to your cause? I'm betting nothing. 

26 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Why will the 2 sides never agree on this?   Because most humans are either 

Malthusians or Cornucopians.  

 

Malthusian environmental philosophy:  Global warming/climate change has been the indirect or direct cause of death of many people already, and will get worse

Famine and starvation is increasing in many parts of the world.  Malnutrition as well as disease, infection, etc... in poor countries.  All related to overpopulation and limited resources as a result of overpopulation and climate change (soil erosion, droughts)

 

The simplistic opposing Cornucopian viewpoint:  environmental problems faced by society either do not exist or can be solved by technology or the free market.

 

Interesting fact: Over half of all scientists work in the field of saving human lives (medical industry)  or building/designing weapons of war  (Military industrial complex) ....how incongruous is that? 

 

Got a different take on that, but agree, 2 kinds of people:

... those that believe & trust all the BS they're told

 

... those that don't trust anything they are told, as been told so many lies in the past, they now know better.

 

If there is money to be make, then I don't believe a damn thing they tell.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

No need, my childhood home on Shoreham Beach is still on the beach 60 years later, and I predict it will still be there in another 60 years. 

Shoreham on list of places that could be lost to sea by 2050 due to climate change

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/environment/shoreham-on-list-of-places-that-could-be-lost-to-sea-by-2050-due-to-climate-change-4033177

 

UK sea levels have risen 6 inches since 1900

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Shoreham on list of places that could be lost to sea by 2050 due to climate change

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/environment/shoreham-on-list-of-places-that-could-be-lost-to-sea-by-2050-due-to-climate-change-4033177

 

UK sea levels have risen 6 inches since 1900

Yet temperatures fell since 2016. "Could" is a forecast ie guess not reality.

lots of species are dieing out and wont come back

30 minutes ago, bignok said:

Yet temperatures fell since 2016. "Could" is a forecast ie guess not reality.

I was replying to a post on sea levels not temperatures, regards modeling forecasts they have actually been quite accurate, the most respected ones fall within a decent margin, some below and some above actual temp rise. 

 

"Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred"

 

Here's just one example of many from this article, this one is from IPCC. The forecast is the black bold line, the others are the actual temperature recordings. 

 

 

This one from Hansen

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

 

 

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I was replying to a post on sea levels not temperatures, regards modeling forecasts they have actually been quite accurate, the most respected ones fall within a decent margin, some below and some above actual temp rise. 

 

"Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred"

 

Here's just one example of many from this article, this one is from IPCC. The forecast is the black bold line, the others are the actual temperature recordings. 

 

 

This one from Hansen

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

 

 

All old news. Heard it 1000 times.

Here's an interesting article from Reuters as El Nino returns...

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/world-could-face-record-temperatures-2023-el-nino-returns-2023-04-20/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily-Briefing&utm_term=042023

 

 

 

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Got a different take on that, but agree, 2 kinds of people:

... those that believe & trust all the BS they're told

 

... those that don't trust anything they are told, as been told so many lies in the past, they now know better.

 

If there is money to be make, then I don't believe a damn thing they tell.

Nope.

 

You have fallen for the lie that grad students are faking data for the big bucks. Let me ask you this: If a scientist wanted to make money, wouldn't they take a job with the oil companies and claim that Global Warming isn't real?

1 hour ago, bignok said:

All old news. Heard it 1000 times.

You will hear many times that scientists 30 years accurately predicted the current warming. 

1 hour ago, bignok said:

Yet temperatures fell since 2016. "Could" is a forecast ie guess not reality.

Nope.

 

You cannot read a simple graph.

 

 

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I figured out how to generate 80% of my household electricity. 

 

What's your contribution to your cause? I'm betting nothing. 

I spend every day building a solar power system for my condo.

Just now, Danderman123 said:

You will hear many times that scientists 30 years accurately predicted the current warming. 

No current warming. Cooling since 2016

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-says-2022-fifth-warmest-year-on-record-warming-trend-continues

 

No warming since 2015.

 

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Nope.

 

You cannot read a simple graph.

 

 

 

Old graph mostly from last century. Since 2016 the graph shows cooling.

 

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/temperature

 

Most recent data from Thailand. Also cooled lately.

3 minutes ago, bignok said:

https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/temperature

 

Most recent data from Thailand. Also cooled lately.

What nonsense is that, coming up with one temperature that is Thailand! 

 

Temperatures in the North are vastly different from the South, both vary greatly by month of year, etc etc etc. To say that Thailand has cooled is utter carp.

2 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

What nonsense is that, coming up with one temperature that is Thailand! 

 

Temperatures in the North are vastly different from the South, both vary greatly by month of year, etc etc etc. To say that Thailand has cooled is utter carp.

Topic is about Thai temperatures. The world temps are given as one average too.

 

 

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

No, I am saying that oil company employees make more money than scientists in universities. 

Do you have anything that supports this? I'm not calling you a liar, but I think you are misinformed. 

Thailand temp, its hot and getting hotter. 

 

https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/thailand/climate-data-historical

27 minutes ago, bignok said:

Old graph mostly from last century. Since 2016 the graph shows cooling.

 

 

The graph is current.

 

You simply cannot read it.

 

I'll give you another one.

 

31 minutes ago, bignok said:

No current warming. Cooling since 2016

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-says-2022-fifth-warmest-year-on-record-warming-trend-continues

 

No warming since 2015.

 

Except for those pesky scientists who disagree with you:

 

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/2020-was-one-of-three-warmest-years-record

 

 

Just now, Danderman123 said:

Except for those pesky scientists who disagree with you:

 

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/2020-was-one-of-three-warmest-years-record

 

 

Learn to read the data then. The headline is pure spin. If 2020 is only top 3 ie not hotter than 2016 then it hasn't warmed.

 

These spin doctors survive on grants. They can't tell the truth ie it cooled a bit.