Global Warming To Hit Thailand's Rice Production

[teatree]

Look at what BIG OIL is up to now JR.

Sen. Kerry: 3 Big Oil Companies, Utility Group Will Back Senate Climate Bill

Sen. John Kerry said yesterday he will have the support of three major oil companies and the leading trade group for electric utilities when he releases comprehensive climate and energy legislation Monday.

Kerry did not name the oil companies, though he has been working closely over the past few months with Shell Oil Co., BP America and ConocoPhillips.

[Bottlerocket]

Hi. I am a simpleton with no understanding of science. I suspended rational thought long ago. I take pride in participating in the destruction of the planet. I enjoy posting whatever nonsense Exxon-Mobile tells me to post to divert people from the fact that global warming and climate change are real. I think it is fun to totally ignore reality and engage in conspiracy theories. I guess I am a certified lunatic.

Don't be embarrassed, you're certainly not alone.

Oh, I am not embarassed at all. I have been dumb as a rock all my life.

I make Forrest Gump look like a genius!

I know I am an idiot without any ability to think.

I don't think I could think my way out of a paper bag.

The truth is that I failed every science course I ever took.

The good news is just like you said, "....you're certainly not alone."

In fact, it appears I have a lot in common with many of the people posting here.

Forrest Gump IS a genius.

[RickBradford]

A two-year Japanese research study into the future of rice production has found:

* elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 increase the production of rice grains

* elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 reduce the water requirement for growing rice by 20-24%

They conclude:

With the concomitant increase in grain yield that also results from atmospheric CO2 enrichment, it should be apparent to all that a continuation of the historical and still-ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will play a major role in enabling us to meet our food needs at the mid-point of the current century, without having to lay claim to all of the planet's remaining fresh water resources and much of its undeveloped land and thereby driving many of the species with which we share the terrestrial biosphere to extinction for lack of land and water to meet their needs

And some muppets still want to restrict and tax this life-giving gas.

[canuckamuck]

It will take years to reverse the old wive's tale about the dangers of C02.

So much money and scientific effort has been wasted chasing this theory. The environment will suffer now because of the wasted efforts and wasted years where man could have been using good science to combat actual environmental hazards. It is too bad that greed got in the way of science and integrity. Muppets indeed

[brahmburgers]

Immense Iceberg Breaks Off From Antarctic Glacier

full article from Reuters News Service

Roughly 1,000 cubic Km on its own, or about 1,000 cubic miles cumulative, if you take in to account the other giant iceberg which calved earlier, and bumped in to it.

There have been other giant icebergs breaking off from Antarctica and from Greenland in recent years. Global warming deniers can say, "What's the big deal, glaciers, when they melt in the sea, don't add any net increase in sea levels." Ok, perhaps that's true, but the fact that the icebergs calving in recent years are so much larger than icebergs in proceeding decades, indicates increased global warming.

Edited May 24, 2010 by brahmburgers

[canuckamuck]

The article doesn't even back you up, really big icebergs have broken off of Antarctica ( a continent entirely covered with ice) since the glaciers have made it to the sea. If they hadn't you would be able to walk from the south pole to Australia.

Large icebergs indicate large glaciers and we already knew that.

[teatree]

Immense Iceberg Breaks Off From Antarctic Glacier

full article from Reuters News Service

Roughly 1,000 cubic Km on its own, or about 1,000 cubic miles cumulative, if you take in to account the other giant iceberg which calved earlier, and bumped in to it.

There have been other giant icebergs breaking off from Antarctica and from Greenland in recent years. Global warming deniers can say, "What's the big deal, glaciers, when they melt in the sea, don't add any net increase in sea levels." Ok, perhaps that's true, but the fact that the icebergs calving in recent years are so much larger than icebergs in proceeding decades, indicates increased global warming.

From the article:

'The calving itself hasn't been directly linked to climate change but it is related to the natural processes occurring on the ice sheet," said Rob Massom, a senior scientist at the Australian Antarctic Division and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center in Hobart, Tasmania.'

Natural processes. Sometimes the Antarctic ice increases, sometimes it decreases and sometime big chunks of it break off. Are we to expect the Antarctic to keep the same form for eternity?

The greatest trick of the warmist propaganda is to take natural fluctuations and convince people that they are unnatural.

[Robby nz]

Rice production is projected to decrease 10 per cent if the world's temperature increases by 1 degree Celsius, said Ed Sarobol, lecturer at Kasetsart Univesity's Faculty of Agriculture, referring to a study by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

Ed said the study conducted last year found that during the period 1951-2000, the country's average minimum temperature increased 0.30 degrees while the average maximum temperature increased 0.13 degrees.

Thats in 50 yeras right? So how long does that make it before we get the 1 degree rise provided the rise is consistant?

And what has happened in the last 10 yrs has it gone up or down or stayed the same?

Read somewhere that last winter in Antartica and Canada was the coldest on record and wasnt the whole UK covered in snow not long back?

[RickBradford]

Thats in 50 yeras right? So how long does that make it before we get the 1 degree rise provided the rise is consistant?

At the quoted rate, the average maximum temperature (which is the important figure) would take 384 years to rise 1 degree.

And what has happened in the last 10 yrs has it gone up or down or stayed the same?

Down, but only very slightly (that is the global average, not specific to Thailand).

[dumball]

'Robby nz' date='2010-05-24 11:28:36' post='36Rice production is projected to decrease 10 per cent if the world's temperature increases by 1 degree Celsius, said Ed Sarobol, lecturer at Kasetsart Univesity's Faculty of Agriculture, referring to a study by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

Ed said the study conducted last year found that during the period 1951-2000, the country's average minimum temperature increased 0.30 degrees while the average maximum temperature increased 0.13 degrees.

Thats in 50 yeras right? So how long does that make it before we get the 1 degree rise provided the rise is consistant?

And what has happened in the last 10 yrs has it gone up or down or stayed the same?

Read somewhere that last winter in Antartica and Canada was the coldest on record and wasnt the whole UK covered in snow not long back?

I was in southern Ontario on the 3rd February , yes it was cold , but nothing like as cold as previous years , there had only been 1 significant snowfall and precious little more came . The thing of note that is more important I feel , is that it was still bloody cold right up until I left in early may and house heating was still essential .

[RPCVguy]

'Robby nz' date='2010-05-24 11:28:36' post='36Rice production is projected to decrease 10 per cent if the world's temperature increases by 1 degree Celsius, said Ed Sarobol, lecturer at Kasetsart Univesity's Faculty of Agriculture, referring to a study by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

Ed said the study conducted last year found that during the period 1951-2000, the country's average minimum temperature increased 0.30 degrees while the average maximum temperature increased 0.13 degrees.

Thats in 50 yeras right? So how long does that make it before we get the 1 degree rise provided the rise is consistant?

And what has happened in the last 10 yrs has it gone up or down or stayed the same?

Read somewhere that last winter in Antartica and Canada was the coldest on record and wasnt the whole UK covered in snow not long back?

I was in southern Ontario on the 3rd February , yes it was cold , but nothing like as cold as previous years , there had only been 1 significant snowfall and precious little more came . The thing of note that is more important I feel , is that it was still bloody cold right up until I left in early may and house heating was still essential .

This thread has so many folk already convinced for or against Climate Change that adding to the posts seems futile - but here goes with some comments and links.

First: some temperature readings plotted on a map. I've linked the 2010 October YTD map here. The main link http://www.ncdc.noaa...r=2010&month=10 contains temperature average by month and year to date compared to the late 20th century 30 year base line for the same precision in readings globally and is useful in differentiating regional weather patterns (sometimes cooler than average) to the global trends (consistently more red dots) Tumball can use the date field in the NOAA page to see how Thailand's temperature has shifted year by year. The data is there.

I see Climate change as a huge issue, already increasing the incidence of weird weather extremes. Really, if one wanted to understand cancer issues, would you ask anyone? maybe the local cattle rancher?or a car salesman? Even a podiatrist wouldn't be a great choice for opinions.

Our society has so many people who have specialized and gained great expertise in their chosen fields. The issue is not that there are not climate specialists, or even whether there is agreement among them on maybe 98% of what is happening and why. The issue is that there are also PR specialists who have learned how to use the nature of science as to testing and theorizing to frame legitimate research as doubts. Too many politicians spout what they do in servitude of big business...(or religion - as for evolution) In this case they are serving corporate investment in oil, coal and gas.

These institutes and think tanks who fund the contrarian theories via their PR experts and get them onto the media with 50% volume... these are the same folk who learned this trade and its personal profitability by saying cigarettes did not necessarily cause cancer.

Sorry, I don't see validity in codling such viewpoints... only in supporting people knowing where to draw the line between what is known and what is being predicted.

Known: humans are causing climate change outside and above the ranges of effects from orbit wobble, sunspots, volcanoes and the like. See this 2-min video by sir David Attenborough:

It gives a quick comparison of modeling results for global temperature against real observation - with and without human activity.

Predicted, but not known: how rapidly the temps will rise and at precisely which points will the effects become irreversible. The scary part about the latter is that every time the new data is compiled, the prior worst cases rates of change are being exceeded. Hoping someone's ideas are wrong makes for a high stakes bluff in a game of poker. This article says the odds are stacking against us... especially in the tropics http://www.newscient...-has-begun.html

[RPCVguy]

Tejas, sorry for returning to a topic other than rice production... which was what I was searching for upon finding the thread. I did at least strive to provide ideas backing up my beliefs instead of typing in statistics without access to sources. While searching I found some related articles/ studies:

From the results of the study, it could be seen that the projection on future climate indicate alarming increase in both maximum and minimum temperature coupled with variability in rainfall which will have greater impact on crop production. Crop duration will be shortened and anthesis dates are expected to get advanced. There might be inefficient translocation of photosynthates, reduction in yield attributing characters and in turn huge reduction in the productivity of the crops. To meet the food needs of the growing population, it is necessary to tailor the management options such as shifting sowing window, growing heat tolerant varieties etc., to overcome the ill effects of changing climate.

http://scialert.net/...ar.2007.119.124

Grain yield declined by 10% for each 1°C increase in growing-season minimum temperature in the dry season, whereas the effect of maximum temperature on crop yield was insignificant. This report provides a direct evidence of decreased rice yields from increased nighttime temperature associated with global warming.

http://www.pnas.org/...01/27/9971.full

... imply a net negative impact on yield from moderate warming in coming decades. Beyond that, the impact would likely become more negative, because prior research indicates that the impact of maximum temperature becomes negative at higher levels. Diurnal temperature variation must be considered when investigating the impacts of climate change on irrigated rice in Asia.

http://www.pnas.org/.../14562.abstract

I would expect that the effects of average temperature will be complicated to assess on temperature alone. Rainfall will be affected concurrently - as I pointed out in my post above. Like this year, that will affect Thailand radically in the form of droughts and or floods.

[RickBradford]

For further reading, there is

Shimono, H., Okada, M., Inoue, M., Nakamura, H., Kobayashi, K. and Hasegawa, T. 2010. Diurnal and seasonal variations in stomatal conductance of rice at elevated atmospheric CO2 under fully open-air conditions. Plant, Cell and Environment 33: 322-331.

"With the concomitant increase in grain yield that also results from atmospheric CO2 enrichment, it should be apparent to all that a continuation of the historical and still-ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will play a major role in enabling us to meet our food needs at the mid-point of the current century, without having to lay claim to all of the planet's remaining fresh water resources and much of its undeveloped land and thereby driving many of the species with which we share the terrestrial biosphere to extinction for lack of land and water to meet their needs."

or

Xiong, W., Conway, D., Lin, E. and Holman, I. 2009. Potential impacts of climate change and climate variabiity on China's rice yield and production. Climate Research 40: 23-35.

"The four researchers report that with anticipated climate changes, "single rice cropping may expand further north in China, and double rice cropping may move to the northern portion of the Yangtze River basin." In addition, they say that "the national mean rice production is estimated to increase by 2.7 to 19.2% considering the combined effects of climate change, CO2 and shifting rice-producing areas."

"Even considering the overly-inflated temperature increases predicted by the IPCC, 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."

[RPCVguy]

For further reading, there is

Shimono, H., Okada, M., Inoue, M., Nakamura, H., Kobayashi, K. and Hasegawa, T. 2010. Diurnal and seasonal variations in stomatal conductance of rice at elevated atmospheric CO2 under fully open-air conditions. Plant, Cell and Environment 33: 322-331.

"With the concomitant increase in grain yield that also results from atmospheric CO2 enrichment, it should be apparent to all that a continuation of the historical and still-ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will play a major role in enabling us to meet our food needs at the mid-point of the current century, without having to lay claim to all of the planet's remaining fresh water resources and much of its undeveloped land and thereby driving many of the species with which we share the terrestrial biosphere to extinction for lack of land and water to meet their needs."

or

Xiong, W., Conway, D., Lin, E. and Holman, I. 2009. Potential impacts of climate change and climate variabiity on China's rice yield and production. Climate Research 40: 23-35.

"The four researchers report that with anticipated climate changes, "single rice cropping may expand further north in China, and double rice cropping may move to the northern portion of the Yangtze River basin." In addition, they say that "the national mean rice production is estimated to increase by 2.7 to 19.2% considering the combined effects of climate change, CO2 and shifting rice-producing areas."

"Even considering the overly-inflated temperature increases predicted by the IPCC, 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."

I see the response citing not fully congruous studies / as apples to oranges / observed data to modeled / data focused solely on CO2 while mine included affects of temperature in Thailand. If temperatures widen the latitudes of the tropic, it is understandable that more northern latitudes in China will be able to produce rice, but this ignores the effects on Thailand's production. While I am open to modeling when it is based on vast amounts of data and using parameters that are widely understood, modeling for rice production under temperature variations in the temperature range forecast is sparsely charted territory indeed.

The article above, quoted above, was without specific links for access. I searched and found brief abstracts, but what I found did not include access to who was funding the research, nor the journal that reviewed the research. One study was totally modeled, the other based on CO2 instead of temperature

Now for the real topic of this discussion thread… while my earlier PNAS link was to observations at research farms. ( http://www.pnas.org/...01/27/9971.full ) Here is the latest! http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-10918591

Rice yields 'to fall' under global warming – from 9 August 2010.

"The latest data, by contrast, comes from working, fully-irrigated farms that grow "green revolution" crops, and span the rice-growing lands of Asia from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to the outskirts of Shanghai."

The key point is this is observed data not computer modeled… making it the most reviewed study of its kind currently available. This PNAS study indicates rice yield decreases when nighttime temperatures fail to drop enough.

"Describing the findings, which are published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), lead researcher Jarrod Welch said:

"We found that as the daily minimum temperature increases, or as nights get hotter, rice yields drop."

"We see a benefit of [higher] daytime temperatures principally because we haven't seen a scenario where daytime temperatures cross over a threshold where they'd stop benefiting yields and start reducing them," he told BBC News."

Meanwhile this study http://www.abc.net.a...010/2943500.htm indicates that access to abundant CO2 is allowing plants to use their resources for producing more of their defense substances (cyanide, nicotine, capsaicin, etc.) which will affect nutrition values for humans and animal species. Other problems with rising levels of CO2 is that the abundance is upsetting the balance of ocean acidity as when CO2 is dissolved in water it forms carbonic acid. This in turn is damaging to sea life, weather coral, shellfish, or the animals up the food chain. Here is a 21 min video on what is linked to ocean acidification; ultimately a great deal of life on the planet will suffer if the rate of increase continues.

One observation as supplied by a hedge fund manager relates to the global game of chance that too many people are willing to play with the environment. Jeremy Grantham's second quarter 2010 letter to investors included a one-page segment called Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes.

http://www.treehugge...g-5-minutes.php

[MightyMouse]

For those that care about their grand kids NASA has a very nice and informative web site discussing climate change.

Climate

For you many naysayers, I can only wish you were right, but common sense tells me that you will probably never understand those of us who are not wearing rose colored glasses. Pray for us all! :jap:

[RickBradford]

For those that care about their grand kids NASA has a very nice and informative web site discussing climate change.

It is both absurd and offensive to suggest that people who do not believe that rising levels of CO2 will cause catastrophe, are in some way less loving of their children. That is the kind of dehumanising ranting which gets the extreme Green/Left so widely and justifiably despised.

For you many naysayers, I can only wish you were right, but common sense tells me that you will probably never understand those of us who are not wearing rose colored glasses

We understand you all too well, and that is why we oppose you..

Because of the Green/Left's urgent psychological need to see humanity as 'bad' (especially the capitalist bit), they manufacture serial crises requiring government intervention, which all turn out to be baseless: on population, famine, pesticides and cancer, desertification, sperm counts, acid rain, GM crops, and many other issues, we have been promised catastrophe, often with the backing of peer-reviewed science, and repeatedly these claims are shown to be spurious.

The latest one, being hastily prepared now that the AGW scare has tanked, is 'biodiversity loss'. So instead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we now have the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). And on it goes.

Of course, the boy who cries wolf may be right one day. But we are right to grow more sceptical when he keeps being wrong.

[MightyMouse]

@RickBradford

Most of Thailand's citizens are involved in some form of agriculture. Their scientific community has every right to identify potential problems that may affect the future of agriculture in Thailand. Especially rice production. Those who wish to belittle this effort of the Thai scientific community because of differences of opinion on climate change should do so with facts and not "dehumanizing ranting" and conspiracy theories.

"For those that care about their grand kids NASA has a very nice and informative web site discussing climate change." This is an inoffensive statement and is only directed at those who care about their grand kids regardless of point of view on climate. NASA to my knowledge is an unbiased source of information that supports the basis of concern of the Thai scientific community.

If a person does not respect the information provided by NASA (naysayers) then please provide me with more authoritative sources. I didn't realize I was a Green left, what does that make you, a red right? Drop the name calling and inflammatory rhetoric!

"It is both absurd and offensive to suggest that people who do not believe" in what you think to be subjected to your offensive posts.

[teatree]

These institutes and think tanks who fund the contrarian theories via their PR experts and get them onto the media with 50% volume... these are the same folk who learned this trade and its personal profitability by saying cigarettes did not necessarily cause cancer.

What about the BILLIONS spent by governments worldwide promoting warming alarmism and indoctrination? Compared to this, the skeptics' funding is a mere drop in the ocean. Governments are hoping to raise trillions in carbon taxes in future years, how about that for personal profitability.

Basic common sense should tell you that the media is vastly slanted towards AGW scare mongering.

What about Climategate? Exactly one year ago the scandal broke, exposing the corrupt, dishonest and self serving IPCC scientists who are at the very cap stone of AGW 'research'.

[RickBradford]

"For those that care about their grand kids NASA has a very nice and informative web site discussing climate change." This is an inoffensive statement and is only directed at those who care about their grand kids regardless of point of view on climate. NASA to my knowledge is an unbiased source of information that supports the basis of concern of the Thai scientific community.

No. One of the standard accusations made of skeptics is that they selfishly support policies which will devastate the planet in the near future and cause misery to generations unborn.

The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change skeptics simply do not care. The vested interests at work are simply too great. …these donothing climate change skeptics are prepared to destroy our children's future - former Australian PM Kevin Rudd:

or

The predominant moral issue of the 21st century, almost surely, will be climate change, comparable to Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century and slavery faced by Lincoln in the 19th century. Our fossil fuel addiction, if unabated, threatens our children and grandchildren, and most species on the planet" - James Hansen, head of Goddard Institute for Space Studies

These are simply offensive slurs, of the same type that led to the Splattergate video, where children who do not believe in climate change are summarily blown up.

If a person does not respect the information provided by NASA (naysayers) then please provide me with more authoritative sources

.

NASA, of course, is the home of James Hansen (see above), who in a speech to the National Press Club in 2008, said that the CEOs of fossil energy companies "should be tried for high crimes against humanity." He is also the author of a book called Storms of My Grandchildren, in which he argues that American citizens have no alternative but to take direct physical action to stop CO2 emissions. I don't regard that as an unbiased source.

The debate about rice production worldwide should indeed be conducted without name-calling, but, unfortunately, the hard Green/Left uses demonization and vilification of its opponents as a standard agit-prop technique, so measured debate is not possible.

[RPCVguy]

These institutes and think tanks who fund the contrarian theories via their PR experts and get them onto the media with 50% volume... these are the same folk who learned this trade and its personal profitability by saying cigarettes did not necessarily cause cancer.

What about the BILLIONS spent by governments worldwide promoting warming alarmism and indoctrination? Compared to this, the skeptics' funding is a mere drop in the ocean. Governments are hoping to raise trillions in carbon taxes in future years, how about that for personal profitability.

Basic common sense should tell you that the media is vastly slanted towards AGW scare mongering.

What about Climategate? Exactly one year ago the scandal broke, exposing the corrupt, dishonest and self serving IPCC scientists who are at the very cap stone of AGW 'research'.

Of all the details and careful itemizing of studies from page 9, you take one sentence, and attack it both without substance or merit. Sad. You chose to go for the easy base hit rather than to handle actual logical discussion that cites sources. Let the important details scroll to another page. Climate-gate was indeed investigated and the results shown to have been a tempest in a teapot. What was done in emails did not upset the balance of data or the conclusions derived. After a year of sensational stories followed by court investigation, this Washington Post article sums it up http://voices.washin...s_scientis.html

For those desiring a discussion of data over schoolyard banter, there are links to maps summarizing global thermal readings by month (interactively searchable) as well as observed study results on crop production as relates to temperature for rice... see page 9. it has more such information than the above posts here on page 10.

Edited November 22, 2010 by RPCVguy

[RickBradford]

Climategate was indeed investigated, and is still being investigated, as a major scientific and financial fraud.

Hal Lewis of the American Physical Society (APS) put it best:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.

It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.

I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

Edited November 22, 2010 by RickBradford

[brahmburgers]

The world is getting warmer.

The global warming debate is getting stratified in a similar way to the debate over whether parents should allow their children to get inoculated against certain communicable diseases. The people against inoculation are so affective at using the internet, that their efforts are causing a shift away from inoculations. The result is once-suppressible diseases are making a come-back, and children are getting things like whooping cough and polio (and mumps and rubella) - which they would have avoided if inoculations were widespread. The science is solid when it shows no greater incidence of in autism among children who get shots - compared to a same number of children who don't (fear of autism is the main concern of anti-inoculation folks). It's a complicated issue, but similar to the climate change issue, in that there is a stalwart % of the population who refuse to accept the findings of widespread and solid scientific evidence. Via the grand scale of the internet, the naysayers can wield a lot of clout - in order to espouse their beliefs.

[canuckamuck]

Why can't you accept that many people disagree without characterizing them as ignorant. And the inoculation argument is pure straw.

Put up the facts or dispute the counterpoint. Your approach is childish.

[brahmburgers]

Why can't you accept that many people disagree without characterizing them as ignorant. And the inoculation argument is pure straw.

Put up the facts or dispute the counterpoint. Your approach is childish.

I have put up facts several times within Thai Visa threads. I haven't put them up on this thread because of not wanting to be repetitive, and I've got other things I'd rather do. The same voices are saying climate change is bunk and they're just as fixed in their denial of it (despite reams of evidence it's happening), so nothing will change that. Not even all glaciers receding and not being replenished (which they're currently doing) or other dramatic evidence.

I didn't use the word ignorant (you did). Neither did I resort to name calling, which you did. If name calling is a childish antic, then which one of us is childish?

[RPCVguy]

This thread has so many folk already convinced for or against Climate Change that adding to the posts seems futile - but here goes with some comments and links.

First: some temperature readings plotted on a map. I've linked the 2010 October YTD map here. The main link http://www.ncdc.noaa...r=2010&month=10 contains temperature average by month and year to date compared to the late 20th century 30 year base line for the same precision in readings globally and is useful in differentiating regional weather patterns (sometimes cooler than average) to the global trends (consistently more red dots) Tumball can use the date field in the NOAA page to see how Thailand's temperature has shifted year by year. The data is there.

I see Climate change as a huge issue, already increasing the incidence of weird weather extremes. Really, if one wanted to understand cancer issues, would you ask anyone? maybe the local cattle rancher?or a car salesman? Even a podiatrist wouldn't be a great choice for opinions.

Our society has so many people who have specialized and gained great expertise in their chosen fields. The issue is not that there are not climate specialists, or even whether there is agreement among them on maybe 98% of what is happening and why. The issue is that there are also PR specialists who have learned how to use the nature of science as to testing and theorizing to frame legitimate research as doubts. Too many politicians spout what they do in servitude of big business...(or religion - as for evolution) In this case they are serving corporate investment in oil, coal and gas.

These institutes and think tanks who fund the contrarian theories via their PR experts and get them onto the media with 50% volume... these are the same folk who learned this trade and its personal profitability by saying cigarettes did not necessarily cause cancer.

Sorry, I don't see validity in codling such viewpoints... only in supporting people knowing where to draw the line between what is known and what is being predicted.

Known: humans are causing climate change outside and above the ranges of effects from orbit wobble, sunspots, volcanoes and the like. See this 2-min video by sir David Attenborough:

It gives a quick comparison of modeling results for global temperature against real observation - with and without human activity.

Predicted, but not known: how rapidly the temps will rise and at precisely which points will the effects become irreversible. The scary part about the latter is that every time the new data is compiled, the prior worst cases rates of change are being exceeded. Hoping someone's ideas are wrong makes for a high stakes bluff in a game of poker. This article says the odds are stacking against us... especially in the tropics http://www.newscient...-has-begun.html

Since posting the above, I have twice attempted to return to a reasonable discussion of how Global Warming may affect Thailand's rice crop yield... but those posting here appear bent on returning to the "Global Warming" aspect of the title, while neither citing the links for their sources nor focusing on the observed test results.

To my delight, a friend on another forum posted a cartoon link quite on topic. Though the cartoonist makes fun of both sides of the issues, he isn't even handed. I went through the collection from beginning to end and offer the following as worthy of this discussion

Big Hoax

-

http://www.minimumse...odegreen/?p=202

They Call Us Names

-

http://www.minimumse...odegreen/?p=203

Phytoplankton

-

http://www.minimumse...odegreen/?p=366

Feel Good

-

http://www.minimumse...odegreen/?p=392

Mad Scientists

-

http://www.minimumse...odegreen/?p=415

Less Resonance

-

http://www.minimumse...odegreen/?p=432

Like Your Style

-

http://www.minimumse...odegreen/?p=463

See, it isn't hard to provide links. A quote by another means, well it truly is just not the same. :jap:

[teatree]

These institutes and think tanks who fund the contrarian theories via their PR experts and get them onto the media with 50% volume... these are the same folk who learned this trade and its personal profitability by saying cigarettes did not necessarily cause cancer.

What about the BILLIONS spent by governments worldwide promoting warming alarmism and indoctrination? Compared to this, the skeptics' funding is a mere drop in the ocean. Governments are hoping to raise trillions in carbon taxes in future years, how about that for personal profitability.

Basic common sense should tell you that the media is vastly slanted towards AGW scare mongering.

What about Climategate? Exactly one year ago the scandal broke, exposing the corrupt, dishonest and self serving IPCC scientists who are at the very cap stone of AGW 'research'.

Of all the details and careful itemizing of studies from page 9, you take one sentence, and attack it both without substance or merit. Sad. You chose to go for the easy base hit rather than to handle actual logical discussion that cites sources. Let the important details scroll to another page. Climate-gate was indeed investigated and the results shown to have been a tempest in a teapot. What was done in emails did not upset the balance of data or the conclusions derived. After a year of sensational stories followed by court investigation, this Washington Post article sums it up http://voices.washin...s_scientis.html

For those desiring a discussion of data over schoolyard banter, there are links to maps summarizing global thermal readings by month (interactively searchable) as well as observed study results on crop production as relates to temperature for rice... see page 9. it has more such information than the above posts here on page 10.

If you want people to reply to every point you make then try to be concise and not write a novel. You made a point, highlighted it and I replied to it.

The climategate 'investigations' were an absolute whitewash. The first was by the UEA themselves so no surprise when they found little at fault with their own scientists, and the second was conducted by a group of supposedly independent warmists, and again no surprise with their findings.

Storm in a tea cup? Ok, perhaps you can explain exactly how the following research by Michael Mann is science. He collected tree ring data that showed steadily rising temperatures throughout the last century, but unfortunately for him the warming in the tree ring data stopped (off the top of my head) around 1960 and started to show a decline. He then wrote an email saying it was a 'travesty' that he could show no warming and that he was going to use a 'trick' by adding in thermometer readings from the year 1960 onwards to show a continuing rise in temperatures. So in other words when the tree ring data wasn't performing the way he wanted he snipped off the unwanted information (that showed cooling) and added on the massaged thermometer readings that got the results he was looking for. This may be Frankenscience - bolting two completely different data sets together and hoping no one will notice - but it is not science.

[RPCVguy]

These institutes and think tanks who fund the contrarian theories via their PR experts and get them onto the media with 50% volume... these are the same folk who learned this trade and its personal profitability by saying cigarettes did not necessarily cause cancer.

What about the BILLIONS spent by governments worldwide promoting warming alarmism and indoctrination? Compared to this, the skeptics' funding is a mere drop in the ocean. Governments are hoping to raise trillions in carbon taxes in future years, how about that for personal profitability.

Basic common sense should tell you that the media is vastly slanted towards AGW scare mongering.

What about Climategate? Exactly one year ago the scandal broke, exposing the corrupt, dishonest and self serving IPCC scientists who are at the very cap stone of AGW 'research'.

Of all the details and careful itemizing of studies from page 9, you take one sentence, and attack it both without substance or merit. Sad. You chose to go for the easy base hit rather than to handle actual logical discussion that cites sources. Let the important details scroll to another page. Climate-gate was indeed investigated and the results shown to have been a tempest in a teapot. What was done in emails did not upset the balance of data or the conclusions derived. After a year of sensational stories followed by court investigation, this Washington Post article sums it up http://voices.washin...s_scientis.html

For those desiring a discussion of data over schoolyard banter, there are links to maps summarizing global thermal readings by month (interactively searchable) as well as observed study results on crop production as relates to temperature for rice... see page 9. it has more such information than the above posts here on page 10.

If you want people to reply to every point you make then try to be concise and not write a novel. You made a point, highlighted it and I replied to it.

The climategate 'investigations' were an absolute whitewash. The first was by the UEA themselves so no surprise when they found little at fault with their own scientists, and the second was conducted by a group of supposedly independent warmists, and again no surprise with their findings.

Storm in a tea cup? Ok, perhaps you can explain exactly how the following research by Michael Mann is science. He collected tree ring data that showed steadily rising temperatures throughout the last century, but unfortunately for him the warming in the tree ring data stopped (off the top of my head) around 1960 and started to show a decline. He then wrote an email saying it was a 'travesty' that he could show no warming and that he was going to use a 'trick' by adding in thermometer readings from the year 1960 onwards to show a continuing rise in temperatures. So in other words when the tree ring data wasn't performing the way he wanted he snipped off the unwanted information (that showed cooling) and added on the massaged thermometer readings that got the results he was looking for. This may be Frankenscience - bolting two completely different data sets together and hoping no one will notice - but it is not science.

"Tempest in a Teapot" was what I had said - to which you replied "The climategate 'investigations' were an absolute whitewash."

Perhaps, but in science, a blanket statement isn't truth by decree. I wrote it of as a tempest in a teapot because from p4 of http://www.pewclimat...ls-12-07-09.pdf

"Although there is no clear evidence of scientific fraud or misconduct at this early stage, if further investigation were to reveal that misconduct had occurred, the scientific consensus regarding human‐induced climate change, as stated by the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and virtually every relevant scientific body (see listing below), is not likely to be affected.

The data sets involved in the discussions have been reproduced independently by other scientists in other countries and yield similar conclusions.

Moreover, the data sets discussed in the emails, while relevant, are not essential to our understanding of contemporary climate change. The two data sets highlighted in accusations of misconduct are very limited and consist of:

• High‐latitude tree ring data that inaccurately suggest that local temperatures declined after 1960; thermometer readings from the same locations demonstrate that the tree rings accurately reflected local temperatures prior to, but not after 1960.

• A small fraction of the weather station data used by the CRU to estimate global surface temperature change (more information below)."

Because I consistently cite the actual source from which I quote, you and other readers have the option of reviewing the rigor of analysis. Those posting here often make broad assertions. When done without specific links to source material it contrasts starkly with to the level of honest revelation that climate change deniers demanded of the actual scientists doing the research.

My posts tend to be long on this topic in an attempt to deal seriously with an important and controversial subject. While you were responding, you failed to notice the discussion at the bottom of the Washington Post article initially linked - many similar pros and cons as are being written here - including these:

"The controversy did point out some problems--scientists don't do nearly enough to educate the public on their work, scientists do act like an old boys' club, refusing to deal with people outside their own circle. Scientists do need to open up to the public and to talented outsiders such as Steve McIntyre. Scientists also need to be honest about uncertainties and to beware of simplifying complex results for the general public." [Posted by: Dadmeister | July 7, 2010 3:58 PM]

And also on that same discussion in the Washington Post:

"Just a few notes:

• The CRU scientists were quite willing to share data with *colleagues*. They weren't so willing to cooperate with outside gadflies, though.
• Also, the staffing level at the CRU was minimal. You had a couple of PI's (principal investigators), a small number of postdocs and grad students, and minimal support staff. So the nuisance FOI's (which for the most part demanded access to email messages instead of data) consumed a great deal of the scientists' time.
• Although the FOI foot-dragging was improper, one must remember what provoked it. It was frustration with outside harassment, not the desire to "hide" anything that prompted the resistance to the FOI requests.
• Now put yourself in the scientists' shoes. You have a job to do, deadlines to make, and in come a bunch of frivolous FOI requests *from a foreign country*.
• You have to take time out to deal with them? Can you put your other work on hold? No.
• Can you push back your publication deadlines, etc? No.
• Is there a special overhead job order number that you can charge to for the time you spend on the nuisance FOI requests? No.
• You are having to spend your own time dealing with outside pests who aren't even citizens of your own country.
• Is it any wonder those scientists had a bad attitude regarding those FOI requests?"

[Posted by: caerbannog | July 9, 2010 10:31 AM]

[brahmburgers]

On September 19, 2010 sea ice extent reached a minimum for the year of 4.6 million km2. The 2010 minimum is the third-lowest recorded since 1979, surpassed only by 2008 and the record low in 2007. Overall, the 2010 minimum was 31% (2.1 million km2) lower than the 1979-2000 average. The last four summers have experienced the four lowest minimums in the satellite record, and eight of the ten lowest minimums have occurred during the last decade. Surface air temperatures through the 2010 summer were warmer than normal throughout the Arctic, though less extreme than in 2007.

above is an excerpt. Complete article, including graphics

[RickBradford]

We have been hearing a lot about how the decline in Arctic ice is following the "steepest slope ever." The point is largely meaningless, but we can have some fun with it. The BremenArctic/Antarctic maps are superimposed above, showing that ice in the Antarctic is at a record high and growing at the "steepest slope ever." You will also note that most of the world's sea ice is located in the Antarctic. But those are inconvenient truths when trying to frighten people into believing that "the polar ice caps are melting."

above is an excerpt. Complete article at http://www.prisonpla...slope-ever.html, including graphics

Edited November 26, 2010 by RickBradford

[RPCVguy]

Two weather phenomena being reported – with seemingly opposite conclusions to be drawn:

On September 19, 2010 sea ice extent reached a minimum for the year of 4.6 million km2. The 2010 minimum is the third-lowest recorded since 1979, surpassed only by 2008 and the record low in 2007. Overall, the 2010 minimum was 31% (2.1 million km2) lower than the 1979-2000 average. The last four summers have experienced the four lowest minimums in the satellite record, and eight of the ten lowest minimums have occurred during the last decade. Surface air temperatures through the 2010 summer were warmer than normal throughout the Arctic, though less extreme than in 2007.

above is an excerpt. Complete article, including graphics

This data shows Arctic Ice mass being loss over this decade compared to measurements since 1979.

In Contrast the citation below highlights that the Antarctic Ice mass is growing as the Antarctic has had cooler temps over a 30 year period.

We have been hearing a lot about how the decline in Arctic ice is following the "steepest slope ever." The point is largely meaningless, but we can have some fun with it. The BremenArctic/Antarctic maps are superimposed above, showing that ice in the Antarctic is at a record high and growing at the "steepest slope ever." You will also note that most of the world's sea ice is located in the Antarctic. But those are inconvenient truths when trying to frighten people into believing that "the polar ice caps are melting."

above is an excerpt. Complete article at http://www.prisonpla...slope-ever.html, including graphics

Since Brahmburgers and RickBradford were kind enough to supply their data source links, I was able to get into enough detail to see these as two regional weather aspects midst the same global trend. This mapping of global temperatures included in RickBradford's link shows that while the majority of the planet is warming, Antarctica (normally a dry continent with little precipitation) is cooler. The article then describes how Antarctica is receiving an influx of moisture from the warmer than usual surrounding ocean. A persistence of a circular vortex of air over the continent is protecting the ice in general for all but the Antarctic Peninsula.

The logical questions that follow are: Will the planet as a whole continue to warm? If so, will the snow in Antarctica eventually be rain? Of the two questions, the former seems likely for two reasons. First, the cumulative effects of greenhouse gases guarantee that a larger portion of radiant heat from the sun will be trapped by the atmosphere. (This link shows human generation of greenhouse gases by sector http://maps.grida.no...sions-by-sector )

Secondly, the sun itself has been in a quiet cycle from sunspots that would typically raise the amount of net radiant energy from the sun. While this may continue, the likelihood is for another sunspot cycle to begin and amplify what is already a warming trend.

Looking again at the above image of global thermal patterns, it seems probable that once solar radiance picks up again with sunspots, or any of a number of effects like release of methane from melting Arctic tundra, that the huge ice-mass of Antarctica will also begin to warm - and not only at its outlying peninsular region.

Finally, to bring this back to the main discussion topic, rice production in Thailand… this year is demonstrating what has been predicted for global warming in general, a magnification of weather extremes. Thailand had a severe drought in the first half of 2010, causing a reduction in the rice crop. Since mid-year though the breaking of the El Nino pattern in the Pacific allowed for rains to return, but with stronger storm patterns carrying more rain, causing more extensive flooding. Again, this has caused a decrease in the rice crop. The impact of droughts and or floods far outweigh the impacts to date of lower production when overnight temperatures are too high. There will be fluctuations - but the overall long-term trend for tropical rice production midst global warming looks to be negative. Reversing such trends will require different varieties of rice and or an increased level of land and water management.

Note: The climate models I've reviewed for predicting rainfall are non-definitive for SE Asia, but only predict an increased frequency of weather extremes throughout the tropics. There are many articles on the topic, but this is a good summary: http://www.scienceda...00226093238.htm