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

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, bignok said:

These guys don't understand science.

You've gone beyond troll lately.

[bignok]

59 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

How foolish must one be to ignore modern science in the hope that future science might prove their fact-scarce hypothesis accurate?

No it's just intelligent to look at facts not scare campaigns. 

 

Humans have it easier now than 100 years ago despite the hysteria over climate.

 

 

[Woof999]

7 minutes ago, bignok said:

No it's just intelligent to look at facts not scare campaigns. 

You need to look at all the facts though...

 

7 minutes ago, bignok said:

Humans have it easier now than 100 years ago despite the hysteria over climate.

That's true. What percentage of that better living do you put down to average temperatures having risen compared with advances directly related to discovery through science?

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, bokningar said:

So you believe that China population is only has around 800 million, And that 1.5 degrees higher temperature every one is talking about is a serious crises for the world? 

I am quoting Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical author, on China's population.

1.5 degrees C increase had about a 66% chance of happening back in 2018. More recent reports now put the probability at 90%, forecast to occur in 2027.

July has been the hottest average temperature on record.

The hotter it gets, the more crises we will have. Who ever heard of Canada and Hawaii having bushfires of this scale before this year?

 

I quote from the 2018 IPCC report:

 

In order to achieve the 1.5 °C target, CO₂ emissions must decline by 45% (relative to 2010 levels) by 2030, reaching net zero by around 2050. Deep reductions in non-CO₂ emissions (such as nitrous oxide and methane) will also be required to limit warming to 1.5 °C. Under the pledges of the countries entering the Paris Accord, a sharp rise of 3.1 to 3.7 °C is still expected to occur by 2100. Holding this rise to 1.5 °C avoids the worst effects of a rise by even 2 °C. However, a warming of even 1.5 degrees will still result in large-scale drought, famine, heat stress, species die-off, loss of entire ecosystems, and loss of habitable land, throwing more than 100 million into poverty. Effects will be most drastic in arid regions including the Middle East and the Sahel in Africa, where fresh water will remain in some areas following a 1.5 °C rise in temperatures but are expected to dry up completely if the rise reaches 2 °C.^[9][1][10]

 

^{It's not what I believe, more what other scientists are saying. 91 authors from 40 different countries. I believe in the laws of thermodynamics. That is not a subject the average person is educated in, unfortunately. If they were, this thread would be superfluous.}

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, bignok said:

No it's just intelligent to look at facts not scare campaigns. 

 

Humans have it easier now than 100 years ago despite the hysteria over climate.

 

 

Tell that to the good people of Maui. Those that survived.

Edited August 13, 2023 by ozimoron

[bignok]

12 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

You need to look at all the facts though...

 

That's true. What percentage of that better living do you put down to average temperatures having risen compared with advances directly related to discovery through science?

Both. Warmer means more crops to feed the people. And tech will improve next 500 years to sort out the issues of the day.

 

In addition when i see people talking up cc but taking cars, planes themselves just have to laugh at their hypocrisy.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

Both. Warmer means more crops to feed the people. And tech will improve next 500 years to sort out the issues of the day.

 

In addition when i see people talking up cc but taking cars, planes themselves just have to laugh at their hypocrisy.

 

 

Why the need for migration then?

 

The UN International Organization for Migration has cited estimates of as many as 1 billion environmental migrants in the next 30 years, while more recent projections point to 1.2 billion by 2050, and 1.4 billion by 2060.

 

Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Migration (October 2021)

[metisdead]

Some posts contravening our Community Standards have been removed.

[bokningar]

37 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am quoting Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical author, on China's population.

1.5 degrees C increase had about a 66% chance of happening back in 2018. More recent reports now put the probability at 90%, forecast to occur in 2027.

I asked if YOU believed that the Chines population is 800 million and not 1,4 billion? Just trying to understand what kind of ferry-tails you do believe in. 

And that the magic 1,5 degrees is a climate catastrophe seams a bit of when not even the new head of IPCC think so. He is quite optimistic about the outcome.

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/ipcc-chef-jim-skea-bei-1-5-grad-erwaermung-geht-die-welt-nicht-unter-a-13dd35aa-1a80-41b8-b966-911015fd9085 

[pub2022]

Climate change:

 

the made up catastrophe used by globalist to instill fear and guilt so they can tax, regulate and remove our freedoms while pretending to be saving the planet.

[Woof999]

1 hour ago, bignok said:

And tech will improve next 500 years to sort out the issues of the day.

You're missing the point. The majority of relevant scientists of today are already saying this is already an issue of the day.

[bignok]

Just now, Woof999 said:

You're missing the point. The majority of relevant scientists of today are already saying this is already an issue of the day.

Name 100 scientists then

[Woof999]

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Name 100 scientists then

...and if I could / did, your position would change?

[Bkk Brian]

36 minutes ago, bokningar said:

I asked if YOU believed that the Chines population is 800 million and not 1,4 billion? Just trying to understand what kind of ferry-tails you do believe in. 

And that the magic 1,5 degrees is a climate catastrophe seams a bit of when not even the new head of IPCC think so. He is quite optimistic about the outcome.

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/ipcc-chef-jim-skea-bei-1-5-grad-erwaermung-geht-die-welt-nicht-unter-a-13dd35aa-1a80-41b8-b966-911015fd9085 

Of course he's optimistic, the main message from the IPCC report is to try and keep climate change below 1.5% increase with the policies its published. If the world can do that then its in a far better position to keep decreasing it but serious intervention is needed to achieve those targets and its impossible to say if all the worst polluting countries will contribute as they should. No one said the world would end. From the report:

 

"Only with ambitious emissions cuts can the world keep global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, the limit scientists say is necessary for preventing the worst climate impacts. Under a high-emissions scenario, the IPCC finds the world may warm by 4.4 degrees C by 2100 — with catastrophic results."

 

Here's the English version of your link without paywall.

https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523

 

Still waiting for the link to your graphic by the way.

[bignok]

13 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

...and if I could / did, your position would change?

So you can't. So the claim of "majority" is a false claim.

 

 

[bignok]

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

world may warm by 4.4

Pigs may fly to

[Woof999]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

So you can't. So the claim of "majority" is a false claim.

 

 

Do you literally live in a playground?

[bignok]

Just now, Woof999 said:

Do you literally live in a playground?

No buddy I'm asking you to back up your claims with proof and details which you cannot do.

 

This means you haven't read the science and don't know any scientists.

 

 

[Woof999]

Just now, bignok said:

No buddy I'm asking you to back up your claims with proof and details which you cannot do.

 

This means you haven't read the science and don't know any scientists.

 

 

...and I asked you, if I did that work, would your position change, at which point you reverted to your usual, childish, playground antics.

 

Why 100? Why not 50, 25, 1000.

 

[bignok]

Just now, Woof999 said:

...and I asked you, if I did that work, would your position change, at which point you reverted to your usual, childish, playground antics.

 

Why 100? Why not 50, 25, 1000.

 

I'm an adult. I've read the science and I'm not concerned.

 

You haven't read anything except headlines from alarmists. Explains why you cannot list any scientists.

 

 

[bokningar]

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Of course he's optimistic, the main message from the IPCC report is to try and keep climate change below 1.5% increase with the policies its published. If the world can do that then its in a far better position to keep decreasing it but serious intervention is needed to achieve those targets and its impossible to say if all the worst polluting countries will contribute as they should. No one said the world would end. From the report:

 

"Only with ambitious emissions cuts can the world keep global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, the limit scientists say is necessary for preventing the worst climate impacts. Under a high-emissions scenario, the IPCC finds the world may warm by 4.4 degrees C by 2100 — with catastrophic results."

 

Here's the English version of your link without paywall.

https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523

 

Still waiting for the link to your graphic by the way.

Here you go

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary

 

And from the new link you just posted

"If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said. 

"The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees," Skea told Der Spiegel. "It will however be a more dangerous world." 

Surpassing that mark would lead to many problems and social tensions, he said, but still that would not constitute an existential threat to humanity. 

The international community's stated target is currently to limit global warming to the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, even though UN estimates suggest that the current commitments made by countries are actually likely to fall far short of their nominal goal.

The UN estimates that within roughly a decade, the target is liable to be breached.

 

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, bignok said:

Pigs may fly to

You can debate or troll, if you want to debate I'll be happy to do that, if you want to troll as above then carry on in your own little bubble

[bignok]

1 minute ago, bokningar said:

Here you go

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary

 

And from the new link you just posted

"If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said. 

"The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees," Skea told Der Spiegel. "It will however be a more dangerous world." 

Surpassing that mark would lead to many problems and social tensions, he said, but still that would not constitute an existential threat to humanity. 

The international community's stated target is currently to limit global warming to the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, even though UN estimates suggest that the current commitments made by countries are actually likely to fall far short of their nominal goal.

The UN estimates that within roughly a decade, the target is liable to be breached.

 

Yes alarmists and their scare campaigns.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, bignok said:

Both. Warmer means more crops to feed the people. And tech will improve next 500 years to sort out the issues of the day.

 

In addition when i see people talking up cc but taking cars, planes themselves just have to laugh at their hypocrisy.

 

 

No, warmer means less crops because the drought and fires will deplete crops far, far more than any increases in photosynthesis caused by higher carbon dioxide levels. This is an example of the trash that climate deniers put forward to try to downplay the crisis, completely devoid of any science not to mention links to nothing.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/drought-extreme-heat-burn-farmers-margin-error-only-july-rcna93862

 

https://www.futurefarming.com/crop-solutions/why-warmer-winters-lead-to-yield-loss-in-arable-crops/

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds/

 

 

[bignok]

More tigers than we thought

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/23/1113186725/tigers-population-numbers-endangered-species

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, bokningar said:

Here you go

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary

 

And from the new link you just posted

"If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said. 

"The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees," Skea told Der Spiegel. "It will however be a more dangerous world." 

Surpassing that mark would lead to many problems and social tensions, he said, but still that would not constitute an existential threat to humanity. 

The international community's stated target is currently to limit global warming to the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, even though UN estimates suggest that the current commitments made by countries are actually likely to fall far short of their nominal goal.

The UN estimates that within roughly a decade, the target is liable to be breached.

 

Yes I read the link I just posted for you, that why I inserted in my post and he's correct the world is not going to end if it reaches an increase of 1.5%, your welcome.

 

Regards the graph you posted earlier, its no longer in your post so its impossible to comment on it.

 

 

[BangkokHank]

On 8/7/2023 at 7:00 AM, Lacessit said:

Here we go again, the usual chorus of deniers. Scientifically illiterate. Can't be bothered, goodbye.

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

[Woof999]

13 minutes ago, bignok said:

I'm an adult. I've read the science and I'm not concerned.

 

You haven't read anything except headlines from alarmists. Explains why you cannot list any scientists.

 

 

It's becoming clearer that what you've done is formed an opinion based only on information that agrees with your own preconceived ideas. Once you take a position, no amount of new data would change your position, it's stuck there in stone. Anything that disagrees with what you believe you will label as alarmist, extreme, woke or any other similar term that tries to cast doubt on it's validity regardless of an basis in fact.

[bignok]

2 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

It's becoming clearer that what you've done is formed an opinion based only on information that agrees with your own preconceived ideas. Once you take a position, no amount of new data would change your position, it's stuck there in stone. Anything that disagrees with what you believe you will label as alarmist, extreme, woke or any other similar term that tries to cast doubt on it's validity regardless of an basis in fact.

It's clear you have never studied the science.

 

Topic is tigers btw.

 

Your comments are all off topic.

[bignok]

3 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Once you take a position, no amount of new data would change your position, it's stuck

False. I went the other way after reading lots.

 

Instead of posting nonsense try researching it.