Climate change threatens Thailand’s tiger conservation efforts, reveals study

[kwilco]

11 hours ago, bokningar said:

Here is some science for you. Temperature change over 8 000 years. Jørgen Peder Steffensen is a professor in ice core related research at the Niels Bohr Institute. Is that good enough for you?

 

Someone who thinks one video makes the accumulated science of climate change fall down is a complete fool.

Edited August 7, 2023 by kwilco

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, bokningar said:

Soo someone decide to use a point in time. Not far back and the coldest point in 8 000 years and that’s then the only relevant way to measure this. Talk about cherry-picking.
Nature and the universe have quite long cycles of change. And there is a lot we don’t know and understand about it. If we ever will have a chance to understand more about something as complex as this I think people have to stop treating this like a religion and look at all facts with open minds.
 

One of the standard excuses from climate deniers, along with plant food and volcanic activity.

Anthropomorphic carbon dioxide emissions are a fact, sticking one's head in the sand or shooting the messenger won't change it.

[bignok]

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

If you don't understand MMCC then you are a fool

And if you think you can do anything about it likewise.

[bignok]

10 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

jesus, you seem like a glass half empty type of guy,  have you considered writing speeches for doom goblin in chief Greta Thunberg?   or is that where you sourced your detailed prediction

 

Humans have never had it easier than now in terms of food, medicine, tech.

 

All this doomsday stuff is just a money grab. Which politicians have stopped flying? None.

[bignok]

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

Someone who thinks one video makes the accumulated science of climate change fall down is a complete fool.

Accumulated gibberish.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, bignok said:

Humans have never had it easier than now in terms of food, medicine, tech.

 

All this doomsday stuff is just a money grab. Which politicians have stopped flying? None.

I suggest you tell that to Africans who are going to be starving shortly, due to the war in Ukraine.

 

Most of the money-grabbing is by China and India. They purchase Russian oil at a big discount, refine it, then sell the various fuel types on the world market at a premium. Money for jam.

 

No-one has ever paid me anything for my support of the science behind climate change. Doomsday is another exaggerated response of denialists.

[kwilco]

5 hours ago, bignok said:

Humans have never had it easier than now in terms of food, medicine, tech.

 

All this doomsday stuff is just a money grab. Which politicians have stopped flying? None.

QED a fool who hides ignorance behind a veil of cynicism.

[bokningar]

13 hours ago, kwilco said:

Someone who thinks one video makes the accumulated science of climate change fall down is a complete fool.

There is many ,mostly professor emeritus, since active scientists get their grants revoked if they say anything that doesn't fit the "right" narrative. Here is an other one using official data from many different public sources. Just look at it with open eyes.

 

[kwilco]

3 minutes ago, bokningar said:

There is many ,mostly professor emeritus, since active scientists get their grants revoked if they say anything that doesn't fit the "right" narrative. Here is an other one using official data from many different public sources. Just look at it with open eyes.

 

You have no idea

[bokningar]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

One of the standard excuses from climate deniers, along with plant food and volcanic activity.

Anthropomorphic carbon dioxide emissions are a fact, sticking one's head in the sand or shooting the messenger won't change it.

Calling people "climate deniers" is just a way for people that believe in the "climate crises religion" to ignore facts that doesn't fit the religion, instead of having a open discussion and look all facts.

[metisdead]

A post with a comedy video with profane language has been removed.  A trolling meme post has been removed.

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Calling people "climate deniers" is just a way for people that believe in the "climate crises religion" to ignore facts that doesn't fit the religion, instead of having a open discussion and look all facts.

Religions have believers. Climate science is all about facts and trends.

It's convenient for deniers to label people such as me as religionists. Also convenient to introduce totally irrelevant facts, such as what was happening 8000 years ago. Or say it's a money grab conspiracy.

There's the natural cycle argument, plant food, volcanic activity, sunspots. Anything to avoid the bleeding obvious, anthropomorphic carbon dioxide emissions triggering the laws of thermodynamics.

It continues to amaze me how people on social media think they know better than 95% of the world's scientists, when the reality is deniers are as dumb as a can of soup.

[bokningar]

20 hours ago, kwilco said:

You have no idea

Very good scientific argument  

[kwilco]

23 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Very good scientific argument  

So the implication is you consider yours are. 

[ozimoron]

On 8/7/2023 at 7:38 PM, bignok said:

We don't know what we don't know.

We do know what we do know.

[ozimoron]

I'm sick of all the brain dead anti-science morons that think climate change isn't a problem or if they acknowledge that it is they invent some feeble hypothesis with no scientific backing to attempt to cast doubt on the science.

[bokningar]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

So the implication is you consider yours are. 

At least I posted 2 links to real scientific studies that should make anyone think again.

This is very complex things and the way most people seams to address this is like religion. We believe and all who say something that not fit our believes/religion is bad. There where times when people believed that earth was flat and the center of the universe. Anyone who argued against that was in big trouble.

[bokningar]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

I'm sick of all the brain dead anti-science morons that think climate change isn't a problem or if they acknowledge that it is they invent some feeble hypothesis with no scientific backing to attempt to cast doubt on the science.

There is a lot of science to at least be able to discuss this in a respectful way.

 

The role of Earth's orbital changes in controlling climate was first advanced by James Croll in the late 19th century. Later, the Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milanković elaborated on the theory and calculated that these irregularities in Earth's orbit could cause the climatic cycles now known as Milankovitch cycles. They are the result of the additive behavior of several types of cyclical changes in Earth's orbital properties.
Relationship of Earth's orbit to periods of glaciation
Firstly, changes in the orbital eccentricity of Earth occur on a cycle of about 100,000 years. Secondly, the inclination or tilt of Earth's axis varies between 22° and 24.5° in a cycle 41,000 years long. The tilt of Earth's axis is responsible for the seasons; the greater the tilt, the greater the contrast between summer and winter temperatures. Thirdly, precession of the equinoxes, or wobbles in the Earth's rotation axis, have a periodicity of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovitch theory, these factors cause a periodic cooling of Earth, with the coldest part in the cycle occurring about every 40,000 years. The main effect of the Milankovitch cycles is to change the contrast between the seasons, not the annual amount of solar heat Earth receives. The result is less ice melting than accumulating, and glaciers build up.
Milankovitch worked out the ideas of climatic cycles in the 1920s and 1930s, but it was not until the 1970s that a sufficiently long and detailed chronology of the Quaternary temperature changes was worked out to test the theory adequately. Studies of deep-sea cores and their fossils indicate that the fluctuation of climate during the last few hundred thousand years is remarkably close to that predicted by Milankovitch.
A problem with the theory is that these astronomical cycles have occurred for many millions of years, but glaciation is a rare occurrence. Astronomical cycles correlate with glacial and interglacial periods within a long-term ice age, but do not initiate ice ages.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

[bokningar]

22 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Religions have believers. Climate science is all about facts and trends.

It's convenient for deniers to label people such as me as religionists. Also convenient to introduce totally irrelevant facts, such as what was happening 8000 years ago. Or say it's a money grab conspiracy.

There's the natural cycle argument, plant food, volcanic activity, sunspots. Anything to avoid the bleeding obvious, anthropomorphic carbon dioxide emissions triggering the laws of thermodynamics.

It continues to amaze me how people on social media think they know better than 95% of the world's scientists, when the reality is deniers are as dumb as a can of soup.

People that didn't believed that earth was flat and the center of the universe was wrong, until they where right.

It is funny how knowledgeable people often are less sure about stuff and more humble about the possibility they can be wrong. And fools are 100 % sure they are right.

[Lacessit]

12 minutes ago, bokningar said:

People that didn't believed that earth was flat and the center of the universe was wrong, until they where right.

It is funny how knowledgeable people often are less sure about stuff and more humble about the possibility they can be wrong. And fools are 100 % sure they are right.

Are you saying 95% of the world's scientists are fools? What are your own qualifications, to enable such a judgment? The grammar and spelling of your first sentence leads me to believe it's a low bar.

[ozimoron]

37 minutes ago, bokningar said:

There is a lot of science to at least be able to discuss this in a respectful way.

 

The role of Earth's orbital changes in controlling climate was first advanced by James Croll in the late 19th century. Later, the Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milanković elaborated on the theory and calculated that these irregularities in Earth's orbit could cause the climatic cycles now known as Milankovitch cycles. They are the result of the additive behavior of several types of cyclical changes in Earth's orbital properties.
Relationship of Earth's orbit to periods of glaciation
Firstly, changes in the orbital eccentricity of Earth occur on a cycle of about 100,000 years. Secondly, the inclination or tilt of Earth's axis varies between 22° and 24.5° in a cycle 41,000 years long. The tilt of Earth's axis is responsible for the seasons; the greater the tilt, the greater the contrast between summer and winter temperatures. Thirdly, precession of the equinoxes, or wobbles in the Earth's rotation axis, have a periodicity of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovitch theory, these factors cause a periodic cooling of Earth, with the coldest part in the cycle occurring about every 40,000 years. The main effect of the Milankovitch cycles is to change the contrast between the seasons, not the annual amount of solar heat Earth receives. The result is less ice melting than accumulating, and glaciers build up.
Milankovitch worked out the ideas of climatic cycles in the 1920s and 1930s, but it was not until the 1970s that a sufficiently long and detailed chronology of the Quaternary temperature changes was worked out to test the theory adequately. Studies of deep-sea cores and their fossils indicate that the fluctuation of climate during the last few hundred thousand years is remarkably close to that predicted by Milankovitch.
A problem with the theory is that these astronomical cycles have occurred for many millions of years, but glaciation is a rare occurrence. Astronomical cycles correlate with glacial and interglacial periods within a long-term ice age, but do not initiate ice ages.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

How do those numbers pertain to the changes we have seen in the past 200 years, or less? Nor do you address the direct physical relationship between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and atmospheric and ocean warming.

 

Your arguments are totally irrelevant to the causes of climate change we are seeing.

[kwilco]

4 hours ago, bokningar said:

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

So the implication is you consider yours are. 

At least I posted 2 links to real scientific studies that should make anyone think again.

you're a joke - "real scientific studies - you really don't understand do you?

[ozimoron]

This year's sea ice minimum is 20% lower than the average over the last 40 years, equivalent to a sea ice loss nearly 10 times the area of New Zealand, said Tim Naish, director of the Antarctic Research Centre at New Zealand's Victoria University of Wellington, who was not a participant in the study.

 

"In some cases we are getting close to tipping points, which once crossed will lead to irreversible changes with unstoppable consequences for future generations," Naish said.

 

Global warming driven by the burning of fossil fuels has made Antarctica more vulnerable to extreme events and the impact is "virtually certain" to get worse, the study said.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/no-quick-fix-reverse-antarctic-sea-ice-loss-warming-intensifies-scientists-2023-08-08/

[bignok]

4 hours ago, bokningar said:

People that didn't believed that earth was flat and the center of the universe was wrong, until they where right.

It is funny how knowledgeable people often are less sure about stuff and more humble about the possibility they can be wrong. And fools are 100 % sure they are right.

Correct. Only fools claim science is settled. Science never settles.

[bignok]

42 minutes ago, kwilco said:

you're a joke - "real scientific studies - you really don't understand do you?

So your response is to insult people. Instant loss

 Bye.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, bignok said:

Correct. Only fools claim science is settled. Science never settles.

One piece of science that was settled 150 years ago was the direct relationship between global warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, bignok said:

Correct. Only fools claim science is settled. Science never settles.

dup

Edited August 9, 2023 by ozimoron

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

One piece of science that was settled 150 years ago was the direct relationship between global warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Also in the 2021 IPCC report:

 

The global surface temperature is 1.1 °C higher compared to the late 19th century. Current CO2 levels are the highest in 2 million years. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

[geisha]

It’s the human race that is responsible for the decrease in tigers and many other wild animals. Take a look at the zoos in Thailand with their drugged tigers, bears , chained up elephants etc etc kept in unhygienic  surroundings/ cages till they drop down dead. ( Phuket zoo left their animals to die during Covid, it was only when a few foreigners managed to get a look over the walls  did they see the undernourished animals left alone. Disgusting. ) Thank God it was reported and people helped and fed them. Then there is the trade in wild animals, often to China, horrifying mistreatment. There is also proof that the majority of fires are man made, And, who is to blame for the polluted water , and dynamite fishing ? It certainly isn’t climate change that manufactures plastic bags ! 

[bokningar]

On 8/9/2023 at 10:19 AM, Lacessit said:

Are you saying 95% of the world's scientists are fools? What are your own qualifications, to enable such a judgment? The grammar and spelling of your first sentence leads me to believe it's a low bar.

Nice going, attack people that isn't native English speaking for not using correct grammar. You really don't have much good fact to use do you. 

And that number 95 % is just fiction. Do you really there is a study of what all scientists think? 

 

Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate change crisis is ‘manufactured’

 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/climate-scientist-admits-the-overwhelming-consensus-is-manufactured/