Global Warming To Hit Thailand's Rice Production

[RickBradford]

Can we have some sources for these two bits of information please (the retraction and the clear statement by the Bangladeshi authorities) ?

Who do you think I am, your secretary?

A number of independent estimates of current sea-level rise range from the IPCC's 3.1mm/year, a cluster of estimates around 1.5mm/year and a low estimate of 0.3mm/year. Nils-Axel Mörner in that graph comes in at 1mm/year, although he says he could be out by a millimetre either way.

The nearest tide-gauge to this disappeared sandbar suggests 0.54mm/year in that region, but the data is a bit out of date. I recall some Indian sources quoting a figure of 5mm/year for the Bay of Bengal, but I'm not sure of their provenance.

Oh, and Mörner saw the silly alarmist story about this island, and was moved to comment:

In 1970, the Bay of Bengal was struck by the very powerful Bhola Cyclone. This was a truly disastrous event with casualties in the order of 500,000 people. This event also caused severe coastal damage. Vast quantities of sediment were set in suspension, and there were significant turbidity flows.

At the border between India and Bangladesh, these sediments transported down the river accumulated in a muddy sand-bar that grew into an island. This newly-created island came to be called South Talpatti or New Moore Island.

There is nothing strange in this. Islands come and go for local reasons triggered by sudden events and longer-term dynamic forces.

On 25 March, 2010, it was suddenly announced that the island had disappeared. Many, including scientists (for example Sugata Hazra, professor in oceanography at Jadavpur University in Calcutta), took the island’s disappearance as an expression of a rapidly rising sea level.

The fact, however, is that it has nothing to do with any global sea level rise, but is attributable to local dynamic factors operating in this part of the Bay of Bengal.

So, the Island of South Talpatti (New Moore Island) was born in 1970 and killed in 2010. The island had a short lifetime of only 40 years. The ultimate cause of its birth was cyclone damage. The cause of its death is likely to be local dynamic influences operating in this part of the huge delta, and it is surely not an effect of a rapid global sea-level rise.

Over the last 40 years we record a virtually fully stable eustatic sea level, even in the Sundarban delta of Bangladesh. The disappearance of the island is by no means a sign of global sea-level rise.

I sometimes think there should be an organisation called Warmists Anonymous where the AGW alarmists could go and discuss their delusions without fear of outside scrutiny, ridicule or criticism. But I realised that we already have one: the IPCC.

Edited March 28, 2010 by RickBradford

[catmac]

I sometimes think there should be an organisation called Warmists Anonymous where the AGW alarmists could go and discuss their delusions without fear of outside scrutiny, ridicule or criticism. But I realised that we already have one: the IPCC.

So true.

I also wish that some AGW alarmists would use a little common sense in all this, instead of being mesmerised by computer wizardry. If South Talpatti were indeed made of rock, i.e. a solid, stable structure, then for it to suddenly appear in 1970 would have required a 2 metre FALL in sea levels. Likewise, for it to disappear today would require a 2 metre RISE in sea levels. Anybody with an understanding of the geography of the Ganges basin would know that such massive sea-level fluctuations would have caused catastrophic damage to Bangladesh with untold numbers of refugees. However, if the island was just an accumulation of silt and sediment, as are most of the islands in the basin, then its appearance and disappearance would have no great impact on the region. Such would indeed appear to be the case here.

[mridiot]

Now you have done it. You have an actual scientist asking smart questions.

I sure hope their side does not show this

and direct readers to the actual science on this issue:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

That would not be good for our side.

Help me divert their attention away from this.......need more comments like "Warmists Anonymous" and "delusional."

Let's talk more about a "grand conspiracy"........that is always a good diversion from scientific reality.

But avoid talking about why Exxon-Mobile might want to fund what we are posting.

That would not be good and might make some people come out of their coma.

[RickBradford]

Crikey, JR, a post that almost makes sense.

The CSIRO graph estimates a rise in sea level of 225mm in the last 138 years, about 1.6mm/year. That pretty much agrees with everyone except Warmists Anonymous -- sorry, the IPCC -- who are way out on a limb at 3.1mm/year.

Pity CSIRO then dresses this up with more unsupported alarmist nonsense: "coastal erosion and inundation of low-lying coastal regions", "saltwater intrusion into aquifers," and such-like rubbish.

But then this is the same CSIRO who in Sep 2009 "for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall" and then, in Jan 2010, admitted "One of the report’s co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was 'no evidence' linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia. 'At this stage, we’d prefer to say we’re talking about natural variability. The science is not sufficiently advanced to say it’s climate change, one way or the other. The jury is still out on that,’' Dr Post said.

"The debate is over. The science is settled." Bah.

[mridiot]

Crikey, JR, a post that almost makes sense.

The CSIRO graph estimates a rise in sea level of 225mm in the last 138 years, about 1.6mm/year. That pretty much agrees with everyone except Warmists Anonymous -- sorry, the IPCC -- who are way out on a limb at 3.1mm/year.

Pity CSIRO then dresses this up with more unsupported alarmist nonsense: "coastal erosion and inundation of low-lying coastal regions", "saltwater intrusion into aquifers," and such-like rubbish.

But then this is the same CSIRO who in Sep 2009 "for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall" and then, in Jan 2010, admitted "One of the report’s co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was 'no evidence' linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia. 'At this stage, we’d prefer to say we’re talking about natural variability. The science is not sufficiently advanced to say it’s climate change, one way or the other. The jury is still out on that,’' Dr Post said.

"The debate is over. The science is settled." Bah.

Good one........but you need to introduce more scientific words and phrases like "Warmists Anonymous," "way out on a limb," "dresses up," "unsupported alarmist nonsense," "such like rubbish" and "bah."

I hope they don't take the time to read the scientific information on that link I posted by accident earlier. If they do, we are in trouble.

In fact, I hope they don't take the time to read the hundreds of peer review scientific papers on the subject that show sea levels are rising (not uniformly), and the heat content in the oceans is increasing (causing thermal expansion)......due to global warming.

Don't worry. I know what to do.

We need to divert their attention away from the scientific facts which we have no scientific response to.

Why don't we start focusing on the "grand conspiracy."

That is a good diversionary tactic. It works every time.

[AugustineB]

Can we have some sources for these two bits of information please (the retraction and the clear statement by the Bangladeshi authorities) ?

Who do you think I am, your secretary?

You have just made two very large statements without providing any references or evidence to back them up - I dont think it is unreasonable to ask you to show your sources - otherwise we how do we know you are not just making it up or quoting of some website that has nothing to do with the associated press or the Bangladeshi government ?

Fopr the record I have looked on google and have been unable to find either a stetment form the bangladeshi authorities or the associated press.

Edited March 28, 2010 by AugustineB

[AugustineB]

t 3mm a year it should have taken 666 years to sink that 2 meter high island,

Global sea level rise has local variations just like temperature.

So anyway - how are the satellite readings explained - a conspiracy ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

I would still like an explanation as to how some skeptics deny sea rise is happening yet accept the world is warming (just thats its not manmade).

So exactly how local is sea level rise, where it is affecting specific islands in the Bay of Bengal (e.g. 2M in 35 years) but not flooding anywhere in Thailand, or India. You do realize that water generally runs downhill right? Or should we start the science lesson there?

As far as sea level rise actually occurring or to how much; there is obviously some dispute among experts. But since we are warmer globally than we were 200 years ago, for example, then I can see the logic that there should be some sea level rise. I cannot see that this immediately makes the cause to be man or this to be a sign of doom. Especially considering that records show a continual rise and fall of global temperatures and sea levels which were not caused by man.

Well you are one type of skeptic who agrees that global warming is happening - but nopt that it is manmade. What then do you say to deny to those that the world is warming at all ?

In relation to sea levels there are localised variations due to the movement of tectonic plates, wobble sin the Earths orbit, the moon etc etc you can read more about them here :

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipc...tar/wg1/432.htm

I agree that two metres does seem like a huge local variation - perhaps there was an amount of subsidence as well. However that the sea level is rising is not really in doubt , and there are various communities that are already feeling its effects.

there have as you say been many temperature changes and sea level changes not caused by man. This can be due to CO2 and CH4 levels that change as a result of the biospheric activity, weathering of rocks, warming of oceans, volcanic activity and of course solar activity. However none of these influences are in sufficient effect at the moment to explain the current warming. The only logical conclusion is that CO2 , a well known greenhouse gas, is retaining some heat. Seeing as this can actually be proved measuring the spectrum of infrared radiation that CO2 absorbs incoming and outgoing rates (in and out the planet) I really cant see why anyone would want to deny it seeing as its in all our itnerests . To change to renewable sources has not proved to be an economic nightmare to those that now produce significant amounts renewably - the only people to lose out will be those selling fossil fuels - it is only logical that they should do everything within their power to protect their business interests by spreading lies and propoganda. Unfortunately not everybody has the time to study climate science - but anyone that does soon sees that there is very little room for doubt about what is causing the current warming.

I at least admire the fact you are capable of holding a rational debate without insulting people - I think its a real shame that people (on both sides of this debate) resort to insults and churlish comments - after all the steenght of your argument alone should be enough to win a debate.

Edited March 28, 2010 by AugustineB

[RickBradford]

To change to renewable sources has not proved to be an economic nightmare to those that now produce significant amounts renewably

It's a pity that you champion rational debate on the one hand and then turn round and post unsupported drivel like this on the other -- but I suppose that is the Warmist way.

* Denmark got into wind power in a big way and found it cost them $124 per ton of CO2 saved, that it benefited German and Norwegian consumers but left their own paying the highest electricity prices in Europe

* Spain got into solar in a big way and discovered that for every green job the government was able to finance, 2.2 jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy, and for a country with 19.4% unemployment, that matters. When the government reduced the subsidies by 30% in early 2009, BP shut two solar plants, firing "between 25,000 and 40,000 people", according to Dr Gabriel Calzada, professor at a Madrid University.

* Even the compliant British media has realised that to attempt to generate 20% of Europe's electrivity renewably by 2020 -- wind and solar, principally -- is "folly of the highest order." The UK subsidizes renewable energy to the tune of £1 billion every year

* Over 14,000 turbines in prime Californian wind territory at Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio, built when subsidies were up to 50%, have been abandoned. Energy consultant Ben Lieberman pointed out: "If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place? It's a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end."

The news about large-scale renewable energy projects to date is generally not good, even before you mention the fact that they can by their nature never deliver base-load electricity, i.e windmills and solar will only work with conventional power stations to support them when there is no wind or sun. As such power stations cannot be fired up at will, they have to run constantly, which defeats the green objective.

To suggest they are a viable alternative, or even a tax-neutral complement, to conventional energy sources is not a good way to start a "rational debate". Nor, by the way, is trying to demonise everyone who opposes AGW hysteria as being motivated in some way by the fossil fuel industry.

Finally, let me refer you to what leading AGW journalist George Monbiot, who equates climate scepticism with "an infectious disease", has to say about current UK policies on renewable energy. Remember, this is the guy who mimicked the US's Iraq evildoers 'deck of cards', with climate skeptics instead of Saddam Hussein's henchmen.

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.

On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn't know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient.

The technology is wrong, the economics are wrong, the politics are wrong, as taxpayers in many countries have found out to their considerable cost.

EDIT:

From the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh:

South Talpatti Island an offshore island emerged along the shallow continental shelf of the Bay of Bengal under the administrative jurisdiction of Shyamnagar upazila in Satkhira district. The island is situated in the coastal shallow seas on the Hariabhanga estuary along the south of the border line marked by the Hariabhanga river flowing between Satkhira district of Bangladesh and Bashirhat police station of the district of 24 Parganas in the West Bengal (India). South Talpatti Island is situated between 2137 North latitude and 8912 East longitude. It has been formed by the alluvium deposits carried by various distributaries of the Ganges-Padma river system. The shape of the island is almost round and appears crescent-shaped when seawater slides down during ebb tide.

Edited March 29, 2010 by RickBradford

[canuckamuck]

I agree that two metres does seem like a huge local variation - perhaps there was an amount of subsidence as well. However that the sea level is rising is not really in doubt , and there are various communities that are already feeling its effects.

You really believe that the ice melts in the arctic and that causes an extraordinary rise in the isolated places in the Bay of Bengal; but only a diminutive rise along the coastlines of Europe and North America? Faithful to a fault me thinks.

there have as you say been many temperature changes and sea level changes not caused by man. This can be due to CO2 and CH4 levels that change as a result of the biospheric activity, weathering of rocks, warming of oceans, volcanic activity and of course solar activity. However none of these influences are in sufficient effect at the moment to explain the current warming. The only logical conclusion is that CO2 , a well known greenhouse gas, is retaining some heat.

Are you proposing that past warmings have been explained to the point of certainty?

Unfortunately not everybody has the time to study climate science - but anyone that does soon sees that there is very little room for doubt about what is causing the current warming.

obviously that is not true.

I at least admire the fact you are capable of holding a rational debate without insulting people - I think its a real shame that people (on both sides of this debate) resort to insults and churlish comments - after all the steenght of your argument alone should be enough to win a debate.

Thank you, although it is difficult in this debate to refrain from harsh remarks because there is so much hype, hyperbole, and religious conviction, that one has little opportunity to use their library voice.

[catmac]

Just in passing, I see another of those AGW alarmist mantras has been exposed as a load of lies........

It seems that there has been no long-term change in the flow of the Gulf Stream, just a series of seasonal ups and downs. Yet another harbinger of doom bites the dust!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8589512.stm

[RickBradford]

Crikey, if Richard Black didn't have to be tied to a chair before he would agree to write that, then Michael Mann's a "denier".

[AugustineB]

To change to renewable sources has not proved to be an economic nightmare to those that now produce significant amounts renewably

It's a pity that you champion rational debate on the one hand and then turn round and post unsupported drivel like this on the other -- but I suppose that is the Warmist way.

* Denmark got into wind power in a big way and found it cost them $124 per ton of CO2 saved, that it benefited German and Norwegian consumers but left their own paying the highest electricity prices in Europe

* Spain got into solar in a big way and discovered that for every green job the government was able to finance, 2.2 jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy, and for a country with 19.4% unemployment, that matters. When the government reduced the subsidies by 30% in early 2009, BP shut two solar plants, firing "between 25,000 and 40,000 people", according to Dr Gabriel Calzada, professor at a Madrid University.

* Even the compliant British media has realised that to attempt to generate 20% of Europe's electrivity renewably by 2020 -- wind and solar, principally -- is "folly of the highest order." The UK subsidizes renewable energy to the tune of £1 billion every year

* Over 14,000 turbines in prime Californian wind territory at Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio, built when subsidies were up to 50%, have been abandoned. Energy consultant Ben Lieberman pointed out: "If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place? It's a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end."

The news about large-scale renewable energy projects to date is generally not good, even before you mention the fact that they can by their nature never deliver base-load electricity, i.e windmills and solar will only work with conventional power stations to support them when there is no wind or sun. As such power stations cannot be fired up at will, they have to run constantly, which defeats the green objective.

To suggest they are a viable alternative, or even a tax-neutral complement, to conventional energy sources is not a good way to start a "rational debate". Nor, by the way, is trying to demonise everyone who opposes AGW hysteria as being motivated in some way by the fossil fuel industry.

Finally, let me refer you to what leading AGW journalist George Monbiot, who equates climate scepticism with "an infectious disease", has to say about current UK policies on renewable energy. Remember, this is the guy who mimicked the US's Iraq evildoers 'deck of cards', with climate skeptics instead of Saddam Hussein's henchmen.

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.

On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn't know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient.

The technology is wrong, the economics are wrong, the politics are wrong, as taxpayers in many countries have found out to their considerable cost.

EDIT:

From the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh:

South Talpatti Island an offshore island emerged along the shallow continental shelf of the Bay of Bengal under the administrative jurisdiction of Shyamnagar upazila in Satkhira district. The island is situated in the coastal shallow seas on the Hariabhanga estuary along the south of the border line marked by the Hariabhanga river flowing between Satkhira district of Bangladesh and Bashirhat police station of the district of 24 Parganas in the West Bengal (India). South Talpatti Island is situated between 2137 North latitude and 8912 East longitude. It has been formed by the alluvium deposits carried by various distributaries of the Ganges-Padma river system. The shape of the island is almost round and appears crescent-shaped when seawater slides down during ebb tide.

Hello Rick,

Thankyou for providing a reference for the Bangladeshi island - could you also provide one for the retraction by the Associated press and please reference the other claims you have made for alternative energy - I dont mean to cast aspersions as to the integrety of your posts, that is not my intention , but I am sure you understand that in a debate such as this with lies and propaganda being spread on both sides it is vital that we can check and verify sources .

For the record I am not trying to demonise you and I look forward to a productive and fruitful debate with you. I will reply to your post about renewable energy in due course as I am currently very busy.

[RickBradford]

See, here's the fundamental difference between Skeptics and Warmists.

You would rather quibble over whether the Associated Press formally retracted their mistake, while I'd rather discuss the science, economics and politics of global warming, with particular reference to Thailand's rice production. It may well be that some of the mainstream media recognised the AP story for the drivel it was, and excluded the "rock island" reference, while AP, to their shame, stuck by it. To me, this is a trivial semantic point; the AP story was flat wrong.

As to the windmill and renewable sources, a few intelligent Google searches should yield what you want. I'll spot you the Spanish solar report -- search for "Gabriel Calzada effects employment renewable", a 53-page PDF.

If you really can't find some of the other sources, send me a PM so we don't clutter up the thread.

[SomTumTiger]

Global warming is a myth... or is it?

[RickBradford]

Two very interesting articles out today, which anyone with a serious interest in this topice should find informative.

First, from the old school, there is James Lovelock (inventor of the Gaia hypothesis). In an interview in the Grauniad, he says a number of interesting and even startling things. For example, he thinks that combating climate change is so serious that we need to adapt almost to a war footing to combat it; but he also says he was disgusted but not surprised by the shenanigans inside CRU which were exposed by Climategate. He adds that he thinks humanity is probably too stupid to meet the challenge of climate change.

Second, is an article by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger in which they argue that energy policy must be separated from climate change science. They begin:

Environmentalists have long sought to use the threat of catastrophic global warming to persuade the public to embrace a low-carbon economy. But recent events, including the tainting of some climate research, have shown the risks of trying to link energy policy to climate science.

It's a good summary of how endless bickering over the extent and cause of climate change has, in effect, stalled a lot of useful environmental policy.

Edited March 30, 2010 by RickBradford

[Elwood62]

I just hope this global warming realy does hit places like the UK and the USA. and will stop all this freezing weather they are having. must be a picky and choosy thing this global warming.

And hope its not one of those once in a 20000 or whatever cycle. like the ice age etc

cant tell us what the weather will be tomorrow. but know for sure what will happen over the next 20 to 50 years. sad to say none of us know for sure but will still have to pay for it either way so we cant win just have to pay the taxes and hope our kids get to know the truth about it.

And hope they are right. about it and the weather tomorrow

Edited March 30, 2010 by Elwood62

[anotherpeter]

I just hope this global warming realy does hit places like the UK and the USA. and will stop all this freezing weather they are having. must be a picky and choosy thing this global warming.

And hope its not one of those once in a 20000 or whatever cycle. like the ice age etc

It's not called Global Warming anymore. It's Global Climate Change.

Some places will get hotter, but some places will get colder.

Storms, floods and droughts will become more common. Glaciers and ice will melt, causing sea levels to rise. Sea level rises will islands and coastal land to become uninhabitable. The inhabitants of many large coastal cities throughout the world (incl. Bangkok, and others with 10 mill+ people) will need to find somewhere else to live. Fresh water will become scarce. More earthquakes will happen (the weight of water in glaciers is moving from the mountains to the oceans, meaning different pressures on the earth's crust, meaning more earthquakes).

All of that is 100% true ... IF Climate Change is true.

That is still being debated, and whether it is caused by mankind is still being debated.

[mridiot]

It's a good summary of how endless bickering over the extent and cause of climate change has, in effect, stalled a lot of useful environmental policy.

Actually it is another diversion from the simple questions that another poster asked you and your cohorts.

If you can't answer, you can't answer.

Admit it and stop pretending.

And please, stop posting the Exxon-Mobile funding disinformation.

It has very little in common with science.

[nisakiman]

An interesting and pertinent article here on the government "investigation" into the "climategate" scandal.

And the gravy train rolls on...

[RickBradford]

Jones is a fourth-rate hack, and they were always going to to give him a free pass. But I was glad they took a swing at that irritating pixie Edward Acton, whose air of amused condescension needed some puncturing.

But,as Furedi wrote, the vested interests still hold important positions, and what was seen to be done, was held to be more important than what was actually done (very little)

Investigations that are meant to serve as a ‘corrective’ to people’s misguided or immoral sentiments [that's you, you Horrible Deniers - Ed.] used to be called rituals. And that is what this the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s ‘limited inquiry’ was mostly about: a ritualised pseudo-investigation aimed at correcting people’s allegedly backward views [that's you again, you naughty oil-funded skeptics - Ed.].

Edited April 1, 2010 by RickBradford

[teatree]

Arctic ice recovers from the great melt

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7086746.ece

Arctic ice is approaching 30 year average levels but don't expect to see this information in any headlines on CNN or BBC. Of course, one event does not prove anything but 3 years ago when the Arctic was at 'record' low levels the mainstream media were more than happy to to make that headline news.

[Tejas]

Arctic ice recovers from the great melt

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7086746.ece

Arctic ice is approaching 30 year average levels but don't expect to see this information in any headlines on CNN or BBC. Of course, one event does not prove anything but 3 years ago when the Arctic was at 'record' low levels the mainstream media were more than happy to to make that headline news.

It seems very clear that agriculture of all types will be "hit" by global warming/climate change. There is no reason to assume otherwise.

We can expect, therefore, that rice production in Thailand (actually worldwide) will be negatively impacted by global warming/climate change.

If that happens (and we are already seeing hotter wetter and drought conditions), the social problems on the ground will intensify.

The costs associated with reduced rice production and an increase in social problems will skyrocket.

[canuckamuck]

Arctic ice recovers from the great melt

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7086746.ece

Arctic ice is approaching 30 year average levels but don't expect to see this information in any headlines on CNN or BBC. Of course, one event does not prove anything but 3 years ago when the Arctic was at 'record' low levels the mainstream media were more than happy to to make that headline news.

It seems very clear that agriculture of all types will be "hit" by global warming/climate change. There is no reason to assume otherwise.

We can expect, therefore, that rice production in Thailand (actually worldwide) will be negatively impacted by global warming/climate change.

If that happens (and we are already seeing hotter wetter and drought conditions), the social problems on the ground will intensify.

The costs associated with reduced rice production and an increase in social problems will skyrocket.

Yes I believe in the future it will be hotter, wetter, colder, and drier than it is right now. And yes i think prices will rise and there will be social issues. I also think many people will die and many babies born. But maybe I am crazy

[Tejas]

If any person can respond to the topic (Global Warming to Hit Thailand's Rice Production), please do so.

The constant attempts to hijack this thread are getting boring, to say the least. Thanks.

[RickBradford]

It seems very clear that agriculture of all types will be "hit" by global warming/climate change. There is no reason to assume otherwise.

We can expect, therefore, that rice production in Thailand (actually worldwide) will be negatively impacted by global warming/climate change.

If that happens (and we are already seeing hotter wetter and drought conditions), the social problems on the ground will intensify.

The costs associated with reduced rice production and an increase in social problems will skyrocket.

Baseless alarmism without a shred of evidence to support it. Standard AGW circular argument.

[catmac]

It seems very clear that agriculture of all types will be "hit" by global warming/climate change. There is no reason to assume otherwise.

We can expect, therefore, that rice production in Thailand (actually worldwide) will be negatively impacted by global warming/climate change.

If that happens (and we are already seeing hotter wetter and drought conditions), the social problems on the ground will intensify.

The costs associated with reduced rice production and an increase in social problems will skyrocket.

Baseless alarmism without a shred of evidence to support it. Standard AGW circular argument.

Strange that the hottest temperature of recent times in Thailand was some 50 years ago.....

"The department said that Uttaradit was reported as having the highest temperature in the years from 1951 and 2009: with 44.5C recorded on April 27, 1960." -- The Nation 2010-04-06

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thailand-Rea...il-t353554.html

Silly to allow actual facts to get in the way of alarmist twaddle!

[Tejas]

If any person can respond to the topic (Global Warming to Hit Thailand's Rice Production), please do so.

The constant attempts to hijack this thread are getting boring, to say the least.

The way to do this--apparently the only way because the spammers will not stop their attempts to hijack the thread--is to ignore the posters who are trying to turn this into a "is global warming/climate change real" thread.

Global warming and climate change are very much real.

There is no serious debate going on about it among real scientists who are studying the problem.

The topic is about the impact of global warming on Thailand's rice production.

[canuckamuck]

Global warming and climate change are very much real.

There is no serious debate going on about it among real scientists who are studying the problem.

The topic is about the impact of global warming on Thailand's rice production.

I think you meant to say there is no real debate between scientist who's funding depends upon them finding evidence for AGW. Quite a few scientist disagree with the standard IPCC party line.

Thailand's rice production will not be negatively effected by mans CO2 emissions this year.

[teatree]

If any person can respond to the topic (Global Warming to Hit Thailand's Rice Production), please do so.

The constant attempts to hijack this thread are getting boring, to say the least. Thanks.

Seems entirely reasonable and appropriate to express a doubt in the current global warming hysteria on a topic that is actually about global warming.

I know you would like the 'deniers' to go away and shut up but our voice is getting louder and greater each day.

[RickBradford]

Global warming and climate change are very much real.

If you want this thread to concentrate on rice production in Thailand, you will have to stop spouting baseless nonsense like the above. That's the way it works.

Research done so far suggests that the relationship between higher temperatures and rice production is poorly understood at best.

Current climatic conditions in Thailand are compared to predictions from four general circulation models (GCMs). Temperature predictions correlate well with the observed values. Predictions of monthly rainfall correlate poorly.

The regional seasonality and extent of the rise in temperature varies with each model. Predictions of changes in rainfall vary widely between models. Global warming should in principle allow a northward expansion of rice-growing areas and a lengthening of the growing season now constrained by low temperatures. The expected increase in water-use efficiency due to enhanced CO2 might decrease the water deficit vulnerability of dryland rice areas and could make it possible to slightly expand them.

The situation in China seems clearer.

The estimated net effect of global warming and concomitant growth in anthropogenic CO2 emissions ends up producing an increase in rice production in the world's most populated country, where it is the people's single most important food source. This is a blessing that simply cannot be ignored.