Phuket has shown very little warming since 1950. While the tropical climate maintains a high average, global temperatures have risen by roughly 0.06°C per decade since 1850. Therefore, the 1950 average was slightly cooler than the current 1991–2020 average of ~28.3°C, but generally within the same tropical range.

The Met Office claims the UK is warming at 0.25 degrees a decade. That is 4 times faster than Phuket. So if they UK warmed by 2 degrees then Phuket only warms by 0.5 degrees so coral would still exist there in 80 years.

For Bangkok the average temperature in 2023 was the same as 1998

https://en.tutiempo.net/climate

4 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

For Bangkok the average temperature in 2023 was the same as 1998

https://en.tutiempo.net/climate

Comparing individual years is not accurate, you need to compare larger intervals, like a decade, or graph the figures and look for a trend.

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

Comparing individual years is not accurate, you need to compare larger intervals, like a decade, or graph the figures and look for a trend.

The graph shows very little warming as anyone with 30 years experience would know.

The average in 1997 was 29.4 and in 1998 was 29.7. No years since have exceeded 29.7 and most fell below 29.4.

Phuket reached 29.7 in 1998. In the 2013 to 2023 period not once did it reach that levels. Phuket has actually cooled since 2001. 22 years of cooling.

Why isn't that in the world news?

39 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If NZ is warmed by 13.5 C, then it follows logically Thailand gets to 40.5 C. Unless you have a means of temperature segregation, and suspending the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

At 40.5 C, Thai coral would be dead, and its green jungles would become deserts.

no it doesnt, it is primarily the poles that warms in a warmer world, less temperature gradients. climate 101

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

Yea

Trend

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

AI is not science

Here is my link

https://en.tutiempo.net/climate/ws-485650.html

Phuket has cooled since 2001, Bangkok has been the same since 1998. No warming trend for decades.

Reported post removed.

Reminder of rule 39a. Posts should be original, on-topic, and written in your own voice. This is a discussion forum—not an AI content dump—so keep contributions natural and personal. AI tools can be used for reference or to support facts, but your writing should reflect your own understanding and perspective. This is especially important for opening posts, which should clearly come from a human point of view and invite genuine discussion.

1 hour ago, khaosokman said:

Most world cities have an average annual temperature of between 10 and 23 degrees. Chiang Mai is 25 to 25.5. So the vast majority of world cities could warm by 2 degrees and still be colder than Chiang Mai.

Makes you wonder why people buy into this global warming fear campaign.

Most of the world is too cold!

The “Chiang Mai is warmer than most cities, so warming is fine” argument completely misses how climate actually works.

Global warming is not a uniform +2°C applied neatly to every city like turning up a thermostat. Warming is uneven, amplified in some regions, disruptive to rainfall patterns, ocean systems, and ecosystems everywhere. Averages don’t tell you how heatwaves intensify, how droughts lengthen, or how monsoons shift.

Chiang Mai being 25°C on average is irrelevant to:

• Sea levels rising over 1 metre this century, threatening coastal cities.

• Coral reefs collapsing at around 2°C of warming due to ocean acidification.

• Extreme heat events becoming far more frequent and dangerous.

• Crop failures and water scarcity affecting billions.

• Parts of the equatorial belt becoming periodically too hot for safe outdoor work.

The current trajectory (around 2.7°C by 2100 if unchecked) isn’t about whether Stockholm becomes “pleasant” or whether London feels like Bordeaux. It’s about destabilising systems that agriculture, infrastructure, fisheries, and economies depend on.

Also, “most of the world is too cold” ignores that civilisation developed around relatively stable climate bands. Move those bands rapidly and you don’t get a mild upgrade — you get disruption, migration, and conflict.

This isn’t a “fear campaign.” It’s based on assessments from the IPCC, NASA and every major scientific body. Pretending global averages are just about comfort levels in cities is like judging a hurricane by whether your garden needed watering that week.

Climate change isn’t about whether Chiang Mai feels warm enough. It’s about whether the systems that support 8 billion people remain stable.

1 minute ago, kwilco said:

The “Chiang Mai is warmer than most cities, so warming is fine” argument completely misses how climate actually works.

Global warming is not a uniform +2°C applied neatly to every city like turning up a thermostat. Warming is uneven, amplified in some regions, disruptive to rainfall patterns, ocean systems, and ecosystems everywhere. Averages don’t tell you how heatwaves intensify, how droughts lengthen, or how monsoons shift.

Chiang Mai being 25°C on average is irrelevant to:

• Sea levels rising over 1 metre this century, threatening coastal cities.

• Coral reefs collapsing at around 2°C of warming due to ocean acidification.

• Extreme heat events becoming far more frequent and dangerous.

• Crop failures and water scarcity affecting billions.

• Parts of the equatorial belt becoming periodically too hot for safe outdoor work.

The current trajectory (around 2.7°C by 2100 if unchecked) isn’t about whether Stockholm becomes “pleasant” or whether London feels like Bordeaux. It’s about destabilising systems that agriculture, infrastructure, fisheries, and economies depend on.

Also, “most of the world is too cold” ignores that civilisation developed around relatively stable climate bands. Move those bands rapidly and you don’t get a mild upgrade — you get disruption, migration, and conflict.

This isn’t a “fear campaign.” It’s based on assessments from the IPCC, NASA and every major scientific body. Pretending global averages are just about comfort levels in cities is like judging a hurricane by whether your garden needed watering that week.

Climate change isn’t about whether Chiang Mai feels warm enough. It’s about whether the systems that support 8 billion people remain stable.

Most cities are 10 to 23 degrees so 2 degrees of warming is great for them. New coral will form in more southern oceans. In 500 years Wellington could be tropical which will be great for tourism and locals. So the warming is great news.

Yet another much-predicted climate-change catastrophe turns out to be baseless: Worldwide sea levels are not rising any faster than a century ago.

https://nypost.com/2025/09/07/opinion/rising-sea-hysteria-debunked-but-the-climate-change-cult-wont-care/

Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate.

February ocean temperatures near Melbourne were 20 to 21 degrees. Coral likes 23 to 29 degrees. So Melbourne needs to warm by 5 degrees to be good for coral. How long will that take? 400 years perhaps.

12 minutes ago, kwilco said:

This isn’t a “fear campaign.” It’s based on assessments from the IPCC, NASA and every major scientific body.

All of which have been discredited.

https://science.house.gov/2017/2/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

50 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

AI is not science

Here is my link

https://en.tutiempo.net/climate/ws-485650.html

Phuket has cooled since 2001, Bangkok has been the same since 1998. No warming trend for decades.

That took some navigating. Your source is not reliable for Bangkok as it only references one weather station and I’m not sure whether it’s a private home.

I asked a second AI (Grok) specifically if the TMD had referenced Bangkok and this is what I got…

The TMD provides a chart of annual mean temperature in Thailand from 1981 to 2020 (available on their website), showing an overall upward trend. The national annual mean temperature rose from around 26.5–27°C in the early 1980s to approximately 27.5–28.5°C in more recent years within that period, reflecting gradual warming.

Supporting sources citing TMD data include:

•  Reports that Thailand’s annual mean temperature increased by about 1°C from 1981 to 2007 (per older TMD references noted in studies and Wikipedia summaries of climate change in Thailand).

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

That took some navigating. Your source is not reliable for Bangkok as it only references one weather station and I’m not sure whether it’s a private home.

I asked a second AI (Grok) specifically if the TMD had referenced Bangkok and this is what I got…

The TMD provides a chart of annual mean temperature in Thailand from 1981 to 2020 (available on their website), showing an overall upward trend. The national annual mean temperature rose from around 26.5–27°C in the early 1980s to approximately 27.5–28.5°C in more recent years within that period, reflecting gradual warming.

Supporting sources citing TMD data include:

•  Reports that Thailand’s annual mean temperature increased by about 1°C from 1981 to 2007 (per older TMD references noted in studies and Wikipedia summaries of climate change in Thailand).

More unscientific junk from you.

Just now, khaosokman said:

More unscientific junk from you.

I am sorry if the Thai metrological department is too unscientific for you.

3 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I am sorry if the Thai metrological department is too unscientific for you.

Post a link otherwise it is against forum rules.

1997+1998 were greater than 2022+2023

https://en.tutiempo.net/climate/2022/ws-484550.html

So there is no warming. Phuket has cooled since 2001! Ko Samui was hotter in 1990 than 2022! 1973 was the same as 2022!

49 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Most cities are 10 to 23 degrees so 2 degrees of warming is great for them. New coral will form in more southern oceans. In 500 years Wellington could be tropical which will be great for tourism and locals. So the warming is great news.

As said, it isn't uniform – if you change overall temps, some places become colder or dryer or simply disappear under floods. You realise that London could become much colder if the Atlantic currents change due to ice melting – London is on the same latitude as Calgary, which is minus 10°C in the winter, about 15 degrees below London – even Vancover which is south of London, averages about 4 degrees lower than London.

New York is famous for frosty Christmases, and winter is on the same latitude as Madrid.

As for Bangkok – it is on average about 1.3 metres above sea level. - if you get just a small rise in sea level, some sinking of the city, and the added flow from the catchment area, then it faces a severe risk of being mostly submerged by 2050 due to a combination of climate-driven sea-level rise and rapid land subsidence (sinking 1-2 cm annually). Studies suggest that without major interventions, 40% of the capital could be flooded by 2030.

THai authorities are already considering moving th adminitrative capital away.. You thn have to think about displaced industry and population - you can't just move millions of people without conflict.

1 minute ago, kwilco said:

As said it isn't uniform – if you change overall temps, some places become colder or dryer or simply disappear under floods. You realise that London could become much colder if the Atlantic currents change due to ice melting - London is on the same latitude as Calgary, which is minus 10C in the winter about 15 degrees below London - even Vancover which is South of London avrages about 4 degrees lower than London.

So you like to make up your own theories as a non scientist. Interesting approach.

8 minutes ago, kwilco said:

As said, it isn't uniform – if you change overall temps, some places become colder or dryer or simply disappear under floods. You realise that London could become much colder if the Atlantic currents change due to ice melting – London is on the same latitude as Calgary, which is minus 10°C in the winter, about 15 degrees below London – even Vancover which is south of London, averages about 4 degrees lower than London.

New York is famous for frosty Christmases, and winter is on the same latitude as Madrid.

As for Bangkok – it is on average about 1.3 metres above sea level. - if you get just a small rise in sea level, some sinking of the city, and the added flow from the catchment area, then it faces a severe risk of being mostly submerged by 2050 due to a combination of climate-driven sea-level rise and rapid land subsidence (sinking 1-2 cm annually). Studies suggest that without major interventions, 40% of the capital could be flooded by 2030.

THai authorities are already considering moving th adminitrative capital away.. You thn have to think about displaced industry and population - you can't just move millions of people without conflict.

Bangkok floods often. Poorly built years ago.

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

So you like to make up your own theories as a non scientist. Interesting approach.

You don't have the right understanding of the underlying information; they are not my theories, they are theories of 99.9% of all the scientists on the planet. You may also need to understand exactly what the word "theory" means in scientific terms.

Also it seems you are using the word "discredited" without actually understanding either the argument or context or meaning.

is explains what a theory is in scientific terms

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You don't have the right understanding of the underlying information; they are not my theories, they are theories of 99.9% of all the scientists on the planet. You may also need to understand exactly what the word "theory" means in scientific terms.

Also it seems you are using the word "discredited" without actually understanding either the argument or context or meaning.

Where do you get the 99.9% from?

1 minute ago, khaosokman said:

Where do you get the 99.9% from?

You also need to check out the Dunning-Kruger effect

........and sealioning.

Key Findings on Scientific Consensus:

• 97-99.9% Agreement: Multiple studies confirm that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

• Expert Agreement: A 2021 study found that among over 88,000 climate-related papers, more than 99% of scientists agree on climate change.

• Global Organizations: Leading scientific bodies worldwide, including the United Nations IPCC and national academies of science, agree that human-caused climate change is happening.

• Public Misperception: While the scientific consensus is over 99%, the general public often underestimates this, believing the consensus is closer to 65%.

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

is explains what a theory is in scientific terms

I doubt you have the faintest clue. You claimed London could cool then said 99.9% agree. Agree that it could cool?

I already debunked your sea level claim and 99.9% of people never agree.

The Met Office is forecasting warming not cooling.

1 minute ago, kwilco said:

You also need to check out the Dunning-Kruger effect

........and sealioning.

Key Findings on Scientific Consensus:

• 97-99.9% Agreement: Multiple studies confirm that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.

• Expert Agreement: A 2021 study found that among over 88,000 climate-related papers, more than 99% of scientists agree on climate change.

• Global Organizations: Leading scientific bodies worldwide, including the United Nations IPCC and national academies of science, agree that human-caused climate change is happening.

• Public Misperception: While the scientific consensus is over 99%, the general public often underestimates this, believing the consensus is closer to 65%.

That is AI which is not scientific.

5 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Where do you get the 99.9% from?

He gets it from living in the woke bubble. After they banned dissenting voices they had unanimous agreement about Muh global warming. They do it over and over. Anything beneficial to the woke cult = absolute fact and no questioning allowed, anything negative to the woke cult is "debunked" and censored.