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

[bignok]

7 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

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

Yep. Thats what I found. Hard to find much at all except mild warming.

 

 

[bokningar]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

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.

 

 

I'll give you one more chance.

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

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 8/7/2023 at 6:21 AM, bignok said:

Fires are normally lit by man. Stop blaming cc on everything.

Quite right, the article references that.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts contravening our Community Standards have been removed.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, bokningar said:

I'll give you one more chance.

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

 

 

You give me one more chance? I'll ignore the idle remark and post the full graphic for you along with asking you, what do you find so strange, they have given different estimates based on how the world responds to climate change and what measures it puts in place. The SSP's differ due to policy decisions that will be taken by governments or not as the case may be.

 

[bokningar]

19 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

what do you find so strange

Nothing, this is what I have been saying all the time.

This is model's and they are not close to exact. They can't even make them work good to recreate what has happened in the past. And no serious scientist is trying to say that this models is correct. It is a lot they don't know and understand yet. It is good the new boss of IPCC is a bit more humble to this. 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Nothing, this is what I have been saying all the time.

This is model's and they are not close to exact. They can't even make them work good to recreate what has happened in the past. And no serious scientist is trying to say that this models is correct. It is a lot they don't know and understand yet. It is good the new boss of IPCC is a bit more humble to this. 

Incorrect or inaccurate? If the model was useless would that somehow mean the theory was wrong? That somehow more carbon dioxide doesn't cause higher temperatures?

Edited August 13, 2023 by ozimoron

[Lacessit]

52 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.

The term is confirmation bias.

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Nothing, this is what I have been saying all the time.

This is model's and they are not close to exact. They can't even make them work good to recreate what has happened in the past. And no serious scientist is trying to say that this models is correct. It is a lot they don't know and understand yet. It is good the new boss of IPCC is a bit more humble to this. 

They do not control policy makers, this model is based predictions for the next 300 years based on what actions the policy makers put in place. The IPCC has no control over policy makers. That's the whole point of the report to give them the necessary information on what needs to be done and what will happen if they don't.

 

IPCC report 

 

https://www.wri.org/insights/ipcc-climate-report

Edited August 13, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[bokningar]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Incorrect or inaccurate? If the model was useless would that somehow mean the theory was wrong? That somehow more carbon dioxide doesn't cause higher temperatures?

Read my posts again.

[bokningar]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

They do not control policy makers, this model is based predictions for the next 300 years based on what actions the policy makers put in place. The IPCC has no control over policy makers. That's the whole point of the report to give them the necessary information on what needs to be done and what will happen if they don't.

 

IPCC report 

 

https://www.wri.org/insights/ipcc-climate-report

So that is what makes them bad at recreate what we know has happened in the past as well?? 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, bokningar said:

So that is what makes them bad at recreate what we know has happened in the past as well?? 

Why? What's that got to do with policy makers decisions?

[Lacessit]

3 hours 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?

When we have modern miracles of science and engineering such as PET scans, aircraft and mobile phones which have more computing power than a mainframe of the 70's, it is gleefully accepted as making our lives better.

When the same science tells us higher temperatures will make our lives worse, it's shoot the messenger, what-about-ism, deny and cherry-pick data to suit the argument nothing is happening. Or pretend it will be beneficial, the BS plant food argument. Human nature.

Insurance companies are not climate deniers. They can see what is happening, and premiums are increasing accordingly with the risk they assess. In fact, it won't be too long before some properties will be uninsurable.

[bokningar]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Why? What's that got to do with policy makers decisions?

Just trying to make you understand that this is modulations and they aren't exact. 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, bokningar said:

Just trying to make you understand that this is modulations and they aren't exact. 

I've already informed you why they are not exact because they are dependent on the outcomes of the policy makers.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, BangkokHank said:

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

Your post is repeating another, with the same level of irrelevance.

[bokningar]

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I've already informed you why they are not exact because they are dependent on the outcomes of the policy makers.

You don't want to understand, but there is a lot of other tings that makes them far from exact. There is so many variables. And a lot that science don't know for sure yet. And this is a stochastic system. If you want to believe that it is just not knowing what politicians will do that's up to you. 

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, bokningar said:

You don't want to understand, but there is a lot of other tings that makes them far from exact. There is so many variables. And a lot that science don't know for sure yet. And this is a stochastic system. If you want to believe that it is just not knowing what politicians will do that's up to you. 

There you go assuming I don't understand again. I understand what the facts tell us via evidence provided. I also understand that making predictions is variable as a direct result of policy actions taken in the future, solar activity is decreasing and the chart you referred to had the volcanic activity variables smoothed out.

 

How Do We Know Climate Change Is Real?
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Edited August 13, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[stoner]

cannabis/hemp could help with this in so many ways....climate change i mean. not the tigers.

Edited August 13, 2023 by stoner

[nglodnig]

OF COURSE man-made global warming is responsible for tigers dying, just as it is equally responsible for earthquakes, volcanoes, meteorites, sun-spots and the occasional comet.

[Lacessit]

10 hours ago, stoner said:

cannabis/hemp could help with this in so many ways....climate change i mean. not the tigers.

Please elaborate, I haven't seen any imaginative BS on this thread for quite a while.

[bignok]

11 hours ago, bokningar said:

You don't want to understand, but there is a lot of other tings that makes them far from exact. There is so many variables. And a lot that science don't know for sure yet. And this is a stochastic system. If you want to believe that it is just not knowing what politicians will do that's up to you. 

They don't research it, they don't understand that scientists know very little about the system.

 

It is all political mumbo jumbo now.

 

 

[stoner]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Please elaborate, I haven't seen any imaginative BS on this thread for quite a while.

cannabis loves c02 almost more than any other plant.

it grows extremely fast and efficiently. the raw materials from it are far stronger are durable than many other toxic materials used today. it can be used for a plethora of products with little to no waste.

 

build massive underground tunnels using old boring machines from subways etc. fill the rooms with cannabis plants and pump c02 from the atmosphere in. use geo thermo as a way to provide power for the lights any cooling systems that may be needed.

 

remind me of the bs that plants pump out after consuming c02 ? 

 

you could use a fully enclosed aquaponics system that would also provide many other useful bi products including most of the nutrients needed. 

 

that kind of bs. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by stoner

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, stoner said:

cannabis loves c02 almost more than any other plant.

it grows extremely fast and efficiently. the raw materials from it are far stronger are durable than many other toxic materials used today. it can be used for a plethora of products with little to no waste.

 

build massive underground tunnels using old boring machines from subways etc. fill the rooms with cannabis plants and pump c02 from the atmosphere in. use geo thermo as a way to provide power for the lights any cooling systems that may be needed.

 

remind me of the bs that plants pump out after consuming c02 ? 

 

you could use a fully enclosed aquaponics system that would also provide many other useful bi products including most of the nutrients needed. 

 

that kind of bs. 

Ah yes, a variant of the Carbon Capture and Storage ( CCS ) boondoggle, on which billions have been spent. It's a real shame none of the facilities have met their design specifications, but that's what one gets for attempting to circumvent the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

One point in your favor, interest in geothermal power is increasing. In Australia, there's a couple of companies that have gone bust trying to bring it to fruition.

[stoner]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Ah yes, a variant of the Carbon Capture and Storage ( CCS ) boondoggle

storage ? you mean consumption by the plants and an oxygen bi product. 

 

[stoner]

to add

 

ahhh the old boondoggle of money stopping us. i will take climate change talk seriously when the money excuse is gone. 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, stoner said:

storage ? you mean consumption by the plants and an oxygen bi product. 

 

I mean the amount of energy required to construct, maintain and harvest such a system will always be more than it is worth in terms of removing carbon dioxide. It's called entropy.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, stoner said:

to add

 

ahhh the old boondoggle of money stopping us. i will take climate change talk seriously when the money excuse is gone. 

Actually, it's the fossil fuel industry lobbies that are stopping us. Add in Murdoch media.

Trump appointed an oil industry executive as Environment Secretary. In Australia, 90% of the advisers in the Prime Minister's Department had links to the fossil fuel industry when the Liberals were in power.

It doesn't matter whether you take climate change seriously. If you are less than 60 yo, and live to 80, it will kick you in the butt, like it or not.

Either through an actual disaster, such as Maui, or in the hip pocket, via insurance premiums.

[stoner]

32 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Actually, it's the fossil fuel industry lobbies that are stopping us. Add in Murdoch media.

Trump appointed an oil industry executive as Environment Secretary. In Australia, 90% of the advisers in the Prime Minister's Department had links to the fossil fuel industry when the Liberals were in power.

It doesn't matter whether you take climate change seriously. If you are less than 60 yo, and live to 80, it will kick you in the butt, like it or not.

Either through an actual disaster, such as Maui, or in the hip pocket, via insurance premiums.

all the explaining means nothing. either the issue is tackled or it isn't. clearly those in power care not as you have shown. 

 

i said climate change talk not climate change itself. 

 

[stoner]

47 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I mean the amount of energy required to construct, maintain and harvest such a system will always be more than it is worth in terms of removing carbon dioxide. It's called entropy.

what's worth more than a livable earth ? i think in the long run this idea would be worth every penny and kilowatt invested. with so much positive return from it the energy consumption could be balanced out. 

 

where other ideas focused only on carbon capture as you said. this one has so many positive outcomes other than just c02 capture.

 

the project could provide its own energy using hemp oil too.