Global Warming In Thailand

[Jingthing]

I strongly suggest that people read what these responsible scientists have to say about the pseudo-scientific naysayers........they blow all of their misleading arguments to pieces.

They are not interested, because they do not CARE. It is human nature not to care about strangers 50 years from now. You see where human nature is getting us as a species. As long as there is any chance at all that the mainstream scientists are wrong about where we are headed, they are happy with their rationality about why we don't need to undergo painful change for the sake of our species future on our planet.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Jingthing

[JR Texas]

I strongly suggest that people read what these responsible scientists have to say about the pseudo-scientific naysayers........they blow all of their misleading arguments to pieces.

They are not interested, because they do not CARE. It is human nature not to care about strangers 50 years from now. You see where human nature is getting us as a species. As long as there is any chance at all that the mainstream scientists are wrong about where we are headed, they are happy with their rationality about why we don't need to undergo painful change for the sake of our species future on our planet.

Thanks for that post. Scientist, at least those that are responsible, always leave the door open to the possibility that they are wrong.

All scientists do is deal with probabilities.......and the evidence, from many different sources, now makes the probability that global warming is not real almost zero.

One thing the pseudo-scientists want us all to believe is that the solution to global warming will be painful. They harp on it over and over again until it becomes part of the cultural stream as self-evident. But it is not self-evident (and they never tell you how costly it is to accept the status quo).

In fact, the solution to the global warming/climate change challenge will lead to a much better world........cleaner, safer, less stressful.........with a higher quality of life for the vast majority.

The ultimate solution is, of course, twofold:

1) massive reduction in the size of the human population (my guess is that about 2 billion would be a sustainable level if we want to create a high quality of life for the majority), and

2) support the development of a totally new energy system that is environmentally sound and inexpensive (no more poverty and less need to work to meet daily needs).

If we do these two things, life will be much better. It will, in fact, be an exciting to pursue these two things on a global scale. It will represent an advance in terms of human evolution. Our species will have a goal worth pursuing.

In the end, what will these two things do? Simple: create global sustainability.

[sustainability: meeting present needs without impairing the needs of future generations]

[ballpoint]

They are not interested, because they do not CARE. It is human nature not to care about strangers 50 years from now. You see where human nature is getting us as a species. As long as there is any chance at all that the mainstream scientists are wrong about where we are headed, they are happy with their rationality about why we don't need to undergo painful change for the sake of our species future on our planet.

Maybe I don't care, or maybe I'm not easily brainwashed by those trying to make money out of a falsehood. The earth was heating and cooling for 4.5 billion years before I was born, and will continue to do so for another 4.5 billion after I'm dead, which is when it is estimated the sun will expand beyond our orbit and fry anything unlucky enough to still be around, so excuse me if I don't get out of my SUV and onto my pushbike. The sincerity of all those "green" companies goes as far as needed to make a buck, and I'm continually amazed at how many fall for their advertising. Look at Toyota, for example. We're bombarded with how they care, because they produce hybrid cars. Those hybrids get less fuel economy than a modern European built diesel, most of which aren't sold here because of the strangle hold the Japanese motor industry have on the Thai auto policy makers, but let's forget that for a minute. Good old Toyota, caring about global warming / climate change / freezing / whatever the weather does in the next few years. Coming out with the Prius, the Harrier hybrid, the small engined Corolla, the 5L land Cruiser, the 6L mega Cruiser. Hypocracy anyone?

[Jingthing]

2) support the development of a totally new energy system that is environmentally sound and inexpensive (no more poverty and less need to work to meet daily needs).

Yes, about the painful thing, well, for most people ANY kind of CHANGE is painful.

Also to go for new energy systems governments will have to become very involved, it won't happen out of thin air through the free will of individuals and companies. This offends the libertarian/right wing types that are the leading skeptics about the dangers we face and are causing. To my view libertarians are nothing but fatalists and nihilists in disguise.

Simple: create global sustainability.

Its not that simple. China and India won't even start unless the west does it first. They justifiably laugh at us for telling them what to do, when we have done almost nothing.

Hypocracy anyone?

Hypocrisy EVERYONE. We are human and that's what we are dealing with, like it or not.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Jingthing

[AleG]

They are not interested, because they do not CARE. It is human nature not to care about strangers 50 years from now. You see where human nature is getting us as a species. As long as there is any chance at all that the mainstream scientists are wrong about where we are headed, they are happy with their rationality about why we don't need to undergo painful change for the sake of our species future on our planet.

Maybe I don't care, or maybe I'm not easily brainwashed by those trying to make money out of a falsehood. The earth was heating and cooling for 4.5 billion years before I was born, and will continue to do so for another 4.5 billion after I'm dead, which is when it is estimated the sun will expand beyond our orbit and fry anything unlucky enough to still be around, so excuse me if I don't get out of my SUV and onto my pushbike. The sincerity of all those "green" companies goes as far as needed to make a buck, and I'm continually amazed at how many fall for their advertising. Look at Toyota, for example. We're bombarded with how they care, because they produce hybrid cars. Those hybrids get less fuel economy than a modern European built diesel, most of which aren't sold here because of the strangle hold the Japanese motor industry have on the Thai auto policy makers, but let's forget that for a minute. Good old Toyota, caring about global warming / climate change / freezing / whatever the weather does in the next few years. Coming out with the Prius, the Harrier hybrid, the small engined Corolla, the 5L land Cruiser, the 6L mega Cruiser. Hypocracy anyone?

Well, easy to fix then. Get your information from reputable scientific institutes rather than the marketing department of some corporation.

[ballpoint]

Well, easy to fix then. Get your information from reputable scientific institutes rather than the marketing department of some corporation.

I get my information from reputable scientists whose research isn't sponsored by the likes of Toyota, Suzlon, and other corporations making money out of a fad.

[AleG]

Well, easy to fix then. Get your information from reputable scientific institutes rather than the marketing department of some corporation.

I get my information from reputable scientists whose research isn't sponsored by the likes of Toyota, Suzlon, and other corporations making money out of a fad.

And who would those reputable scientists be?

[BSJ]

The government have banned Global Warming cos the locals say it is to hot already!

[ballpoint]

Well, easy to fix then. Get your information from reputable scientific institutes rather than the marketing department of some corporation.

I get my information from reputable scientists whose research isn't sponsored by the likes of Toyota, Suzlon, and other corporations making money out of a fad.

And who would those reputable scientists be?

There was a whole thread on this in the news forum, where a bunch of names were given, however, here's a link to an online petition, stating disbelieve in the global warming theory, signed by over 31,000 scientists:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

Let's look at some facts, dug up from various places on the internet, and what I can remember of my glaciology studies:

The major "greenhouse" gases are water vapour and CO2. Water vapour accounts for around 70% of the effect, CO2 somewhere between 4.2 - 8.4%. Both will absorb heat radiation in "wavelength bands", that is they will only absorb certain wavelengths of infrared radiation. Much of the wavelength bands where CO2 is active are either at or near saturation. Water vapour absorbs infrared over pretty much the same range as CO2, and more besides. Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated wavebands has no net effect. Even adding to those wavebands not already saturated will have only a slight effect. Calculations by a number of scientists suggest that the potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.

It stands to reason, if you have a real greenhouse, it is warm inside because the glass allows the sunlight to enter but prevents the infrared heat to escape. You may warm it up more if you increase the thickness of the glass, but it doesn't follow that if you keep increasing the thickness the greenhouse will keep heating up. Sooner or later the wavebands absorbed by the glass will become saturated, and the rest will escape, no matter how much more glass you add. In fact, this isn't such a good example, as the density of the glass allows it to absorb far more infrared than CO2, making it far more extreme than an atmospheric "greenhouse". In reality, infrared absorbtion by CO2 follows a logarithmic trend. Forgetting about water vapour for a minute, if you start with an atmosphere with no CO2 at all, the addition of a small amount will rapidly increase the heat able to be absorbed. Which is a good thing, or the earth would be a frozen ball. As more CO2 is added, the amount of extra infrared absorbed will drop roughly ten fold. Eventually, when the waveband becomes saturated, you could keep adding more and more CO2 and get no extra increase in heat absorbtion. We are at, or very near, that point right now. It must also be remembered that the warmer the atmosphere is, the more CO2 it can absorb, meaning that, once saturation has taken place, CO2 levels become a reflection of temperature increase, rather than a cause of it.

Over the lifetime of the earth its mean temperature has occasionally been far higher than it is now, and it has occasionally been far colder than it is now. These fluctuations are caused by variations in the orbit, the tilt of the axis and solar activity. We are currently in an "interglacial" (warmer) period in the Quaternary Glaciation. The glaciation, or ice age, began 2.58 million years ago, the current interglacial has so far lasted for around 10,000 years. There have been around 40 interglacials in this "ice age", some of which were far warmer than now, with the probable loss of all ice from Greenland. The current one is projected to last anywhere from another 15,000 to 50,000 years, before the ice sheets again cover much of the surface. Prior to the beginning of the Quaternary Glaciation, the earths surface was completely free of ice, all the way back to the end of the previous one, some 250 million years ago. No doubt this one came to an end due to the highly industrialised reptile population at the time?

[Jingthing]

The petition project cited above founded by the deceased physicist Frederick Seitz is the very same Frederick Seitz who made an argument for R.J. Reynolds:

Wiki

Critics say he used the same "uncertainty" tactic to challenge global warning that he had used effectively at R.J. Reynolds to confuse the cancer/smoking link debate

A hired gun for the biggest cancer stick pusher? I'd say this man's ethics and credibility are in question.

KA

CHING

Edited June 21, 2009 by Jingthing

[canuckamuck]

Dear JR

"Once again.......there is a massive amount of scientific data out there that shows global warming is a reality. The naysayers ignore reality and hard science".

Would you mind posting a little of this data that so convinces you, for us naysayers to look at? Try to keep it Thai related, it is a Thai forum after all.

I just posted it.......you ignored it........then implied that nothing was posted that was convincing.......Thailand is part of planet earth the last time I looked. There is no point in having a scientific debate with people who reject reason in favor of pure emotion.

Here, let me post the links again:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm

I strongly suggest that people read what these responsible scientists have to say about the pseudo-scientific naysayers........they blow all of their misleading arguments to pieces.

It would be nice if you could give us a little help navigating those two sites to find the actual point you were trying to make. One site is just a massive list of links to other pages, and the other seems to be a blog with many articles. If you did actually read the info, you should have a clue as to where those argument exploding discussions can be found. Other wise, why not just link Wiki's home page, it would probably be more useful.

[mahtin]

The petition project cited above founded by the deceased physicist Frederick Seitz is the very same Frederick Seitz who made an argument for R.J. Reynolds:

Wiki

Critics say he used the same "uncertainty" tactic to challenge global warning that he had used effectively at R.J. Reynolds to confuse the cancer/smoking link debate

A hired gun for the biggest cancer stick pusher? I'd say this man's ethics and credibility are in question.

KA

CHING

Right on, gotcha.

[mortenaa]

Yes, we have climate change. We always had. Climate is changing on Earth, like it does on the Sun, like on Mars, or anywhere else in the universe. Nothing is constant.

Some numerology:

- The atmosphere contains 780 Gt (Gigatons) C

- The surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C

- Vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C

- Intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C as CO2 or CO2 hydration products.

Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C, and vegetation and the atmosphere exchange 100 Gt C.

Total human industrial CO2 production, primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently about 8 Gt C per year. Humans also exhale about 0.6 Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.

More CO2 in the atmosphere means a greener planet, a healthier planet. More trees grow in more difficult climate, including cold places, and desert climate like Sahara.

See the facts. The warmer climate on earth, the more CO2 in the atmosphere. More sun activity results in warmer climate. Last time i checked, the sun is the actual reason we have a livable climate in the first place.

The faster people open their eyes, the faster the biggest hoax in the history of man kind can be stopped!

Edited June 21, 2009 by mortenaa

[mortenaa]

Please see this movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=52...;q=apcalypse+no

This lecture is the actual reason that Al Gore's movie was banned from viewing British schools for educational purpose.

In Norway, the ex prime minister and Director-General of WHO 1998 – 2003, said that don't believing in man made CO2 emissions is the cause of Global Warming, is the same as not believe the holocaust caused on the Jews during 2nd world war took place. That's a quite shocking statement about theories that cannot be proved, and it also proves the level of political involvement this so-called truth have.

Open your eyes!

[AleG]

Yes, we have climate change. We always had. Climate is changing on Earth, like it does on the Sun, like on Mars, or anywhere else in the universe. Nothing is constant.

Some numerology:

- The atmosphere contains 780 Gt (Gigatons) C

- The surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C

- Vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C

- Intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C as CO2 or CO2 hydration products.

Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C, and vegetation and the atmosphere exchange 100 Gt C.

Total human industrial CO2 production, primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently about 8 Gt C per year. Humans also exhale about 0.6 Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.

More CO2 in the atmosphere means a greener planet, a healthier planet. More trees grow in more difficult climate, including cold places, and desert climate like Sahara.

See the facts. The warmer climate on earth, the more CO2 in the atmosphere. More sun activity results in warmer climate. Last time i checked, the sun is the actual reason we have a livable climate in the first place.

The faster people open their eyes, the faster the biggest hoax in the history of man kind can be stopped!

The problem is, CO2 has other impacts besides warmer overall temperature, for example, ocean acidification as the CO2 goes into the water and turns into carbonic acid. That wrecks all kinds of havoc on the growth of shelled animals and coral.

The problem with the current trends is not that the Earth hasn't warmed before, it's that the change is too quick to allow time for adjustments. We are pumping out into the athmosphere hundreds of millions of years worth of carbon sequestration (oil and coal) in a matter of a couple hundred years. The change is radical compared with the past so for example, the normal process in which the carbonic acid in sea water gets turned into limestone and buried in the sea bed can't cope anymore, there's a backlog of carbon coming in and not enough time to process it, thus the acidity is going up.

Ballpoint, so CO2 accounts for 4.8 to 8.2 percent according to the figure you give (let's average it to 6.5) of the total greenhouse effect of the Earth, does that mean that it's insignificant and not worth keeping an eye on it?

From articles I've read the temperature of the Earth, if there would not be any sort of greenhouse effect acting on it, would be -17 C, add all the greenhouse gasses and you get a global average temperature of the Earth is about 14 C, therefore the greenhouse effect accounts for 33 C increase on temperature, 6.5 percent of 33 is 2.145 degrees, so if you double the amount of CO2 (which has already happened in the last 2 centuries) and its impact goes to 12% of the global greenhouse effect the increase in temperature would be another 2.145 degrees globally without counting other aggravating factors like decrease in ice caps reducing the Earth's albedo, higher temperatures increasing the capacity of air to retain even more water vapor, etc, etc.

Two extra degrees in global temperature in a mere century or two is dramatic, barring cathaclismic (of the scale of the asteroid that smoked the dinosaurs) events that dramatic are unknown of for the Earth.

So no, I'm not underwhelmed with the idea that CO2 is a minor component of the greenhouse effect.

[canuckamuck]

Please see this movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=52...;q=apcalypse+no

This lecture is the actual reason that Al Gore's movie was banned from viewing British schools for educational purpose.

In Norway, the ex prime minister and Director-General of WHO 1998 – 2003, said that don't believing in man made CO2 emissions is the cause of Global Warming, is the same as not believe the holocaust caused on the Jews during 2nd world war took place. That's a quite shocking statement about theories that cannot be proved, and it also proves the level of political involvement this so-called truth have.

Open your eyes!

I hadn't seen that before, a very complete undressing of climate change hysteria, using IPCC's own methods and data for the most part.

Thank you.

[ballpoint]

The petition project cited above founded by the deceased physicist Frederick Seitz is the very same Frederick Seitz who made an argument for R.J. Reynolds:

Wiki

Critics say he used the same "uncertainty" tactic to challenge global warning that he had used effectively at R.J. Reynolds to confuse the cancer/smoking link debate

A hired gun for the biggest cancer stick pusher? I'd say this man's ethics and credibility are in question.

KA

CHING

Right on, gotcha.

Have you seen the wording of the petition? Whatever the motives of the person starting it, it makes no reference to him, only stating that the signee is skeptical of the global warming theory. To date, 31,478 American scientists have signed it. Are they all on his payroll? It's far more logical to distrust a man who preaches the evils of global warming, and then makes money out of trading carbon credits. What a great con. Company "A" produces a million tonnes of carbon, company "B" 2 million. Let's just say both companies produce 1.5 million. Company B gives A some money and I make a tidy comission.

[ballpoint]

Ballpoint, so CO2 accounts for 4.8 to 8.2 percent according to the figure you give (let's average it to 6.5) of the total greenhouse effect of the Earth, does that mean that it's insignificant and not worth keeping an eye on it?

From articles I've read the temperature of the Earth, if there would not be any sort of greenhouse effect acting on it, would be -17 C, add all the greenhouse gasses and you get a global average temperature of the Earth is about 14 C, therefore the greenhouse effect accounts for 33 C increase on temperature, 6.5 percent of 33 is 2.145 degrees, so if you double the amount of CO2 (which has already happened in the last 2 centuries) and its impact goes to 12% of the global greenhouse effect the increase in temperature would be another 2.145 degrees globally without counting other aggravating factors like decrease in ice caps reducing the Earth's albedo, higher temperatures increasing the capacity of air to retain even more water vapor, etc, etc.

Two extra degrees in global temperature in a mere century or two is dramatic, barring cathaclismic (of the scale of the asteroid that smoked the dinosaurs) events that dramatic are unknown of for the Earth.

So no, I'm not underwhelmed with the idea that CO2 is a minor component of the greenhouse effect.

No, but you sound overwhelmed by the data. You ignore the laws of physics, as they are inconvenient truths in the campaign for global warming. As I said before, an increase in CO2 will not lead to a proportional increase in temperature, it is a logarithmic relationship. Again, ignoring the far more widespread water vapour effect, an initial dose of 1 unit of CO2 will lead to a 1 unit increase in temperature. The addition of a further unit of CO2 will lead to a 0.1 unit temperature increase, then a 0.01 increase, etc etc. It is further complicated by the fact that an increase in temperature will lead to an increase in the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed by the atmosphere. Much of the early studies linking a rise in CO2 with an increase in temperature have now been disproved, as it has been found that the rise in CO2 occurred after the rise in temperature. ( http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/OUTGOING...cope_proofs.pdf ). The references stated in this paper provide additional reading.

Without wishing to be pretentious, I am a scientist. Science is built on observing an effect, coming up with a hypothesis to explain it, investigating and attempting to prove that hypothesis, confirming it as fact, if proven, or beginning again with a new hypothesis for the effect, if unproven. Man made global warming was a hypothesis designed to explain the climate fluctuations recorded over the 19th and 20th centuries, despite the fact that we have no accurate records to compare these with. For all we know, the exact same pattern could have been seen in the 19th and 20th centuries BC, long before industrialisation. It was not proved, and so was changed to the "climate change" theory, which is a bit of a cop out, since, even if the temperature starts decreasing, its proponents can jump out and say "see, the climate is changing, we must be right". Yes, the climate is changing, just as it has constantly changed over the life of the earth. Whether we as a species have anything to do with it is still at the hypothesis stage. It is still a theory, it has not been proved, and maybe never will be.

[AleG]

That the increase in temperature due to CO2 levels is logarithmic is indeed true and a mistake on my part when I did the math, thankfully that probably accounts for global temperatures to only rise by 0.7 degrees in the last century instead of 2 degrees. However the increase is there anyway you look at it and it's causes have not been reverted and the CO2 concentrations are far from the saturation point where further increases will yield negligible heat absorption.

I know there are many uncertainties with the global warming theory, personally I don't buy the doomsday scenarios with rapid sea rising, murderous weather and uninhabitable conditions; but I haven't seen any compelling evidence as to what else is causing temperatures to rise icecaps and glaciers to melt. The only thing I have seen so far is people taking potshots at the theory but not proposing any solid alternative. It's very much like the Creationism debacle, where the creationists want to "teach the controversy" by pointing at seemingly disparate date, but without ever openly proposing an alternative theory to evolution other than "God did it".

In any case all this still flies right over the head of my initial and personally more pressing argument that fossil fuels burning should be curtailed, independently of whether it's the cause for GW or not.

[canuckamuck]

I know there are many uncertainties with the global warming theory, personally I don't buy the doomsday scenarios with rapid sea rising, murderous weather and uninhabitable conditions; but I haven't seen any compelling evidence as to what else is causing temperatures to rise icecaps and glaciers to melt. The only thing I have seen so far is people taking potshots at the theory but not proposing any solid alternative.

That is because when people point out the clearly obvious relationship between solar activity and temperature increase, which is clearly observable in graphs going back hundreds of years, people like you still want something else to be the cause. It just has to be the SUV's, ooooh they are sooo evil, I hate them grrrr. So sad

Edited June 22, 2009 by canuckamuck

[mortenaa]

Yes, the climate is changing, just as it has constantly changed over the life of the earth. Whether we as a species have anything to do with it is still at the hypothesis stage. It is still a theory, it has not been proved, and maybe never will be.

Exactly. A few of us might remember the new ice age hysteria in the 80's.

We have a lot of challenges on mother earth. We have a lot local pollution to deal with. Im afraid that Global Warming is taking all the resources from the real challenges. Like industrial waste, water pollution, plastic, recycling and so on.

[Mosha]

How many more times. We have it on good authority. Thailand is too far from the poles to worry about melting ice.

[EndofDays]

I have always been a global warming skeptic, because I've never seen any proof that global warming actually exists. So I decided to look at temperature records for Thailand. I chose Chiang Mai because there is data available from 1943 to 2009. I chose April because it is generally one of Thailand's hottest months.

The lowest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1949 (29.9 C)

The highest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1983 (39.2 C)

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 1944 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 2009 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai between 1943 and 2009 was 36.1 C

<deleted>,where's the global warming???

Exactly...

Arizona has longest stretch of days below 100 degrees since 1913...

<H1 class=topHeadline>June hasn't been this nice since ... 1913</H1>http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/200...9.html#commentsby John Faherty - Jun. 19, 2009 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

Meteorologists are reluctant to call a month "nice." They have their data and their science and typically do not describe the weather in such subjective terms.

Except now, because the data prove it.

"It's probably the best June since I've been here, and I've been here most of my life," said the National Weather Service's Valerie Meyers, who is in her late 40s. "It's been really nice." OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1')

Possibly the nicest June ever.

It's that type of thing that is fun to say but hard to quantify.

Thursday, however, was the 14th consecutive day to stay below 100 degrees. That's the longest stretch of its kind in any June since 1913.

The lower temperatures have allowed people to sleep with windows open and drive with their arms out vehicle windows. Evenings, too, have been spent chatting with neighbors while children or grandchildren play. Those events are not life-changing, but they are, well, nice.

Typically in June, high-pressure systems begin to form above the Valley. High pressure means clear skies and little wind. And, in June, clear skies let in the sunshine, sending the temperatures soaring.

This June, though, has remained cool because of what Meyers called "a persistent area of low pressure off the West Coast."

The low pressure has prevented the high-pressure systems from getting into place.

Alas, all good things must come to an end. This weekend, the days will heat up. Temperatures are expected to be back in the 104-105 range by the middle of next wee

[AleG]

I know there are many uncertainties with the global warming theory, personally I don't buy the doomsday scenarios with rapid sea rising, murderous weather and uninhabitable conditions; but I haven't seen any compelling evidence as to what else is causing temperatures to rise icecaps and glaciers to melt. The only thing I have seen so far is people taking potshots at the theory but not proposing any solid alternative.

That is because when people point out the clearly obvious relationship between solar activity and temperature increase, which is clearly observable in graphs going back hundreds of years, people like you still want something else to be the cause. It just has to be the SUV's, ooooh they are sooo evil, I hate them grrrr. So sad

Of course if the Sun increases it's output the temperature on Earth should increase too, but it's not what it's going on now, for the last thirty years the Sun radiation output has actually decreased slightly

[Garry9999]

I have always been a global warming skeptic, because I've never seen any proof that global warming actually exists. So I decided to look at temperature records for Thailand. I chose Chiang Mai because there is data available from 1943 to 2009. I chose April because it is generally one of Thailand's hottest months.

The lowest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1949 (29.9 C)

The highest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1983 (39.2 C)

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 1944 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 2009 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai between 1943 and 2009 was 36.1 C

&lt;deleted&gt;,where's the global warming???

Disclaimer: I am not a climatologist so I don't have any qualifications regarding this subject, except some training and a lot of experience in statistics.

It appears that the phenomenon is now preferably referred to as "Global Climate Change". The reason is apparently that the effects will vary greatly in different locations. One of the possible effects that seems to be attracting an amount of current attention is that there is a risk that the Gulf Stream and in particular the North Atlantic drift will weaken, causing cooling and possibly a new Ice Age in the Nordic countries. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_t...ine_circulation )

Now to the OP: Quoting yearly averages is rather pointless, as anybody can se from posted graph that variations between individual years are far greater than any trend. However, one can go to the original data and do a trend analysis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_linear_regression ) to determine the change over the studied period (1943-2009). I have just done that and came up with the following graph (please note that data is missing for several years):

As you can see, the trend line does show an increase over this time period. The temperature trend was at 35.6 degrees in 1943 and had risen to 36.8 degrees in 2009, a rise of 1.2 degrees in 46 years. This of course proves nothing about Global Climate Change, but it does prove that the data the OP based his post on demonstrates the opposite of what he is claiming

/ Priceless

Priceless, very well done, you appear to be are the first and only person on this tread that has looked at the data, most people have posted links to other peoples opinion or quoted what they have read on news sites.

"Quoting yearly averages is rather pointless" agreed, also the time period is too short. But it did kick off an interesting debate. We could probably manipulate that data set to demonstrate anything we wanted. Also are are quite right about the missing data mid '40's and 1966 -1972, possible due to WW2 & Vietnam war.

All I really ask is that people question what we are being told by The Media & Governments about climate change and draw their own conclusions. There seems to be a lot of hysteria, sensationalism and emotion out there about this topic.

Thanks for talking to time to post the trend graph.

[jumnien]

The bottom line, pun intended, is that those fat b*stards who refuse to exercise or eat properly are perceiving that it is getting hotter every year, i.e. Gore. Those who get up early and enjoy the beautiful Thai dawn by exercising before their light nutritious breakfast are staying slim and finding it quite easy to adjust to their environment. It's always easier to blame other people than to change oneself, but in the long run it is more than worth it. Go out and enjoy the beauty the earth has to offer! And stop reading negative crap!

[canuckamuck]

I know there are many uncertainties with the global warming theory, personally I don't buy the doomsday scenarios with rapid sea rising, murderous weather and uninhabitable conditions; but I haven't seen any compelling evidence as to what else is causing temperatures to rise icecaps and glaciers to melt. The only thing I have seen so far is people taking potshots at the theory but not proposing any solid alternative.

That is because when people point out the clearly obvious relationship between solar activity and temperature increase, which is clearly observable in graphs going back hundreds of years, people like you still want something else to be the cause. It just has to be the SUV's, ooooh they are sooo evil, I hate them grrrr. So sad

Of course if the Sun increases it's output the temperature on Earth should increase too, but it's not what it's going on now, for the last thirty years the Sun radiation output has actually decreased slightly

I don't know what you see in those graphs, what I see is three periods of increased solar activity, the last being between 98 and 06 which corresponds pretty well with the rise in Global warming hysteria, and also explains why we have been cooling for the last three years. The sun is at a very low state of activity right now and solar scientists are scrambling to predict the beginning of the next cycle.

A thirty year graph showing three peaks and starting at the height of one of them and ending in a trough is also likely to show a downward trend. These charts shows signs of an attempt to cherry pick data, but it fails to provide anything compelling.

If you really want to see the relationship between solar activity and temperature you have to go back at least a century. Have a look here.

[JR Texas]

I know there are many uncertainties with the global warming theory, personally I don't buy the doomsday scenarios with rapid sea rising, murderous weather and uninhabitable conditions; but I haven't seen any compelling evidence as to what else is causing temperatures to rise icecaps and glaciers to melt. The only thing I have seen so far is people taking potshots at the theory but not proposing any solid alternative.

That is because when people point out the clearly obvious relationship between solar activity and temperature increase, which is clearly observable in graphs going back hundreds of years, people like you still want something else to be the cause. It just has to be the SUV's, ooooh they are sooo evil, I hate them grrrr. So sad

Of course if the Sun increases it's output the temperature on Earth should increase too, but it's not what it's going on now, for the last thirty years the Sun radiation output has actually decreased slightly

I don't know what you see in those graphs, what I see is three periods of increased solar activity, the last being between 98 and 06 which corresponds pretty well with the rise in Global warming hysteria, and also explains why we have been cooling for the last three years. The sun is at a very low state of activity right now and solar scientists are scrambling to predict the beginning of the next cycle.

A thirty year graph showing three peaks and starting at the height of one of them and ending in a trough is also likely to show a downward trend. These charts shows signs of an attempt to cherry pick data, but it fails to provide anything compelling.

If you really want to see the relationship between solar activity and temperature you have to go back at least a century. Have a look here.

There is no evidence that recent solar activity accounts for a rise in global average temperature on the planet......that is simply false and misleading information. If you want to read what actual scientists have to say about this--the people who actually measure solar activity--visit the links I provided earlier.

[Garry9999]

There is no evidence that recent solar activity accounts for a rise in global average temperature on the planet......that is simply false and misleading information. If you want to read what actual scientists have to say about this--the people who actually measure solar activity--visit the links I provided earlier.

JR, did you actually read the website provided by canuckamuck? Or did you just choose to ignore it? I have looked at the website links you posted, I found no evidence for anything there.

[JR Texas]

The argument promulgated my Canuckamuck has already been demolished by scientists working in the field who publish in peer review journals. I think you are the one who is ignoring evidence.

Again, for those who chose not to ignore what the scientific community is saying, I have posted links to a pethoral of evidence. The last thing the pseudo-scientists want you to do is go to those links and read what the scientists have to say.

So, they have been instructed to say, "nothing there" or something similar.