Weather Trends

[seville]

Hey all you guys and gals in the gulf of Siam. Have you noticed a change in wheater pattern over the last few years for the month of November?

I was told November was always very rainy, but this year I guess that's not the case. What was last year like? Does it seem that December may be the new rainy month? What do you all think?

[Boh Bpen Yang]

I have noticed that if you don't like the weather on Samui, just stick around and it will change... just a little joke.... It doesn't seem to be as rainy as last year or the year before but it's still raining.

[Explorer]

Do you think it'll snow?

Explorer

[sbk]

My husband has lived here all his life and he says the weather patterns have definitely changed since he was a kid. That said, no, I don't think Dec will be the new rainy season, this year is just pretty dry. We had a really dry rainy season about 4 years ago, terrible drought, and then the next year rained like heck. And last year, we had flooding in Nov. And I remember getting really heavy rain for about a week in April about 2 years ago. Unheard of, rain in April.

Just unpredictable any more, that's all. Kinda scary reading about the melting of the Arctic ice with me living so close to the sea and all

[Boon Mee]

And if folks go around believing that stuff like what was depicted in the movie "Day After Tomorrow" they'll also believe in the tooth fairy & Little Green Men!

[sbk]

Boonmee, I suggest you check out this link: NY Times arctic warming article before putting it all down to Hollywood.

A comprehensive four-year study of warming in the Arctic shows that heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks around the world are contributing to profound environmental changes, including sharp retreats of glaciers and sea ice, thawing of permafrost and shifts in the weather, the oceans and the atmosphere.

The study, commissioned by eight nations with Arctic territory, including the United States, says the changes are likely to harm native communities, wildlife and economic activity but also to offer some benefits, like longer growing seasons. The report is due to be released on Nov. 9, but portions were provided yesterday to The New York Times by European participants in the project.

While Arctic warming has been going on for decades and has been studied before, this is the first thorough assessment of the causes and consequences of the trend.

It was conducted by nearly 300 scientists, as well as elders from the native communities in the region, after representatives of the eight nations met in October 2000 in Barrow, Alaska, amid a growing sense of urgency about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

The findings support the broad but politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is due mainly to rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that the Arctic is the first region to feel its effects.

There is more if you choose to read the article.

You might note the phrase

the broad but politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is due mainly to rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that the Arctic is the first region to feel its effects.

before you start scoffing. Just because something is politically controversial doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.

[seville]

I guess this is the case all over. Hard to say what the weather is doing anymore.

Thanks for your input

[Boon Mee]

Boonmee, I suggest you check out this link: NY Times arctic warming article before putting it all down to Hollywood.

A comprehensive four-year study of warming in the Arctic shows that heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks around the world are contributing to profound environmental changes, including sharp retreats of glaciers and sea ice, thawing of permafrost and shifts in the weather, the oceans and the atmosphere.

The study, commissioned by eight nations with Arctic territory, including the United States, says the changes are likely to harm native communities, wildlife and economic activity but also to offer some benefits, like longer growing seasons. The report is due to be released on Nov. 9, but portions were provided yesterday to The New York Times by European participants in the project.

While Arctic warming has been going on for decades and has been studied before, this is the first thorough assessment of the causes and consequences of the trend.

It was conducted by nearly 300 scientists, as well as elders from the native communities in the region, after representatives of the eight nations met in October 2000 in Barrow, Alaska, amid a growing sense of urgency about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

The findings support the broad but politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is due mainly to rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that the Arctic is the first region to feel its effects.

There is more if you choose to read the article.

You might note the phrase

the broad but politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is due mainly to rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that the Arctic is the first region to feel its effects.

before you start scoffing. Just because something is politically controversial doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.

sbk~

Fair enough...there is Global Warming but my point, which you chose to ignore, was that it's not on the scale depicted in the movie "Day After Tomorrow".

After that flick came out there were scores of scientists debunking the premise such a cataclismic event could occur as rapidly as shown.

You really want to get down to basics, global warming started when the first cave man rubbed two sticks togeather to get his campfire going!

[sbk]

I don't think I ignored it, I said global warming isn't all down to just Hollywood. My father-in-law has lived here his entire life and as he made his living mainly fishing had developed a keen eye for the weather. He used to be able to predict it to the day, now he no longer has a clue what is going to happen as his previously predictable weather has turned terribly unpredictable. Also, the article points out that the Arctic is melting at a very fast rate and will probably no longer exist in it's recognizable form within 100 years. That's pretty darn fast to me. Albeit not in the overnight way of Hollywood.

[umathurman]

Well I guess we're certainly saved from drought here before we reach december...samui is living up to its weather forecasts now, isn't it? (MUIFA finding us)

[Boon Mee]

I don't think I ignored it, I said global warming isn't all down to just Hollywood. .

Check this out, sbk...

Kyoto's smoke screen imperils us all

By Andrei Illarionov

Financial Times

Published: November 15 2004

Next year the Kyoto protocol will be an international treaty. For those who heavily lobbied Russia to ratify it, this is cause for celebration. But for most of the world, it is bad news. The Kyoto protocol is destructive for science and the environment, for public health and safety, for economic growth and for the international fight against hunger and poverty.

Kyoto is scientifically unsubstantiated. Climate change is an inalienable feature of Earth. But it is not proved that concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes changes in global temperature. Variations in energy flow from the sun determine our climate much more than anything else, including emissions of greenhouse gases. Historically, global temperature has fluctuated more than the increase of 0.6° Celsius over the past 100 years cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://envirotruth.org/news/20041115.cfm

[sbk]

Boon Mee, the biggest problem I have with the Kyoto agreements is that it doesn't make 3rd world countries have a deadline to fall in line with more developed nations.

That said, I could search on the internet to find "proof" rebutting your "proof" just as I could easily search online to "prove" the world was flat. Anyone can twist facts around to fit their hypothesis.

Just a quick note about Envirotruth:

Envirotruth is a project of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which in 2003, was underwritten to the tune of $30,000 from Exxon Mobil.  (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf)

The project was launched in May 2002 with a media release stating that the site is "dedicated to injecting badly needed truth into the debate about our environment. For too long, some environmental groups have seized the world stage and the public's attention by distorting facts, bending the truth and even committing acts of terrorism against innocent citizens."  (http://www.envirotruth.org/about.cfm)

The site concentrates on four issues - biotech food, chlorine, climate change and polyvinylchloride. Envirotruth - like a number of similar sites - claims that it "sheds light on the environmentalist movement, offering information about their tactics, terrorist acts and fundraising machines."

Groups in the sights of the project include the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. The media release announcing the launch of the project cited Patrick Moore criticising Greenpeace.

NCCPR does not disclose who is funding the project. However, ExxonMobil - which clashes with Greenpeace and the Sierra Club - have disclosed their funding for the site.

In 2002 ExxonMobil donated $30,000 to NCCPR for "educational activities" and a further $15,000 for general support. (http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf) In 2003 the company boosted its general operating support to $25,000 with another $30,000 for 'global climate change/EnviroTruth website"

Sometimes its a good idea to check your sources first.

[Boon Mee]

Boon Mee, the biggest problem I have with the Kyoto agreements is that it doesn't make 3rd world countries have a deadline to fall in line with more developed nations. 

Just a quick note about Envirotruth:

Sometimes its a good idea to check your sources first.

Your point?

Matter of fact have checked 'em out and their analysis stack up vs. your garden-variety tree-hugger/whale-saver knee-jerk "environmentalist".

I work in the Oil & Gas Industry and believe me, it's Zero Discharge these days or the fines are substantial...

[toastwars]

I don't think I ignored it, I said global warming isn't all down to just Hollywood. .

Check this out, sbk...

Kyoto's smoke screen imperils us all

By Andrei Illarionov

Financial Times

Published: November 15 2004

Next year the Kyoto protocol will be an international treaty. For those who heavily lobbied Russia to ratify it, this is cause for celebration. But for most of the world, it is bad news. The Kyoto protocol is destructive for science and the environment, for public health and safety, for economic growth and for the international fight against hunger and poverty.

Kyoto is scientifically unsubstantiated. Climate change is an inalienable feature of Earth. But it is not proved that concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes changes in global temperature. Variations in energy flow from the sun determine our climate much more than anything else, including emissions of greenhouse gases. Historically, global temperature has fluctuated more than the increase of 0.6° Celsius over the past 100 years cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://envirotruth.org/news/20041115.cfm

And you notice the author works for the financial times? Do you not think that his interest in finance and not the enviroment would have had anything to do with the selection of his fact with which he based his artical?

[sbk]

Never mind, you won't change my mind Boon Mee and I clearly won't change yours.

Only time will tell who is really right, certainly not "analysts" with vested interests.

[Boon Mee]

Never mind, you won't change my mind Boon Mee and I clearly won't change yours. 

Only time will tell who is really right, certainly not "analysts" with vested interests.

sbk~

Let me give you a quick example of how this thing is distorted beyond all measure.

A few years ago when they were building Interstate 10 east of New Orleans thru Pass Christian to Pascagula, MS there was a tremendous hue & cry about what to do with the Sandhill Crane nesting/breeding grounds.

Needless to say, construction was halted while a solution was being worked out which eventually became...move the Cranes inland a bit to similar watershed.

You know what? The Cranes moved right back and are nesting in even greater numbers than before - under the overpasses!

Same thing with Ospreys & the Brown Pelicans in the New Orleans to Bay St. Louis area. They're back.

You know where the best fishing and Crab harvests are in the Gulf of Mexico?

That's right - areas surrounding oil platforms so like I say, this doomsday scenario where man is destroying the environment is a load of huey. Aside from Chernoble and Three Mile Island examples...

[Ulysses G.]

Boon Mee ROCKS!

[sbk]

Or Love Canal? Or Bhopal? Or the Exxon Valdez? Or massive mudslides due to deforestation? Or the fact that childhood asthma has doubled over the past 20 years? Or the extinction of a record number of species in the past 100 or so years?

Never mind.

[Boon Mee]

This is a picture of Washington State's largest POLLUTER!

Where are the protestors?

[Boon Mee]

Further to the discussion a new report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment cautioned "Global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them." JunkScience.com says the report doesn't connect greenhouse gases with any alleged warming. Indeed, the reports debunks itself in a graph on Page 23:

In the past hundred years, arctic temperatures have fluctuated in cycles roughly 40 years long. And, as George Taylor also has shown, the near-surface Arctic air temperature was higher around 1940 than now, despite all the greenhouse gas emissions since.

You can read all about it HERE.

[Boon Mee]

sbk~

Thought of you when I ran across this piece you can read about HERE

The Kyoto Protocol is Dead

By Ronald Bailey

BUENOS AIRES -- The Kyoto Protocol is dead -- there will be no further global treaties that set binding limits on the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) after Kyoto runs out in 2012.