Concerns over deadly heat wave that could strike Thailand next year

[kannot]

NOTHING drastic is going to happen in my lifetime.

If it does, there is NOTHING I can do about it, as its on a "natures" scale.

The best you can do, IF you believe such things, is to prepare for it based on available information when it becomes imminent.

One thing is for sure "talking about it" will achieve nothing and have zero impact on any eventualities/outcome globally.

Worry about the things you can change/influence, not the things that all you can realistically do is try to cope with and live with.

(IMHO)

"the things you can change/influence"

You may be right Roland but I'm not sure, take a (maybe notsomuch) hypothetical scenario:

You read all the reports and you listen to all the evidence, for and against and you conclude that the worlds scientists, NASA and global governments are actually right, the problem is being caused by our consumption of fossil fuels. As a result you change your lifestyle just a little and you persuade your family and a couple of friends to do the same, as a result the problems are mitigated.

The alternative is to say I can do nothing and it's all out of my control, that way you absolve yourself of responsibility and you become a fatalist, what will be will be.

Yet another alternative is to say it's a natural event, this has a similar outcome to the previous approach but in order for it to work you need to prove to yourself and other that it is indeed part of a natural cycle.

I like options one and three, option two is a non-starter for me, so those options require some fact finding and some research and perhaps listening to people who understand these things technically and I think that's pretty much where I am at the moment on all of this. Just food for thought.

says it all for me

[chiang mai]

A couple of points:

Firstly, what's the source for the graph, do you have a link?

Secondly, the negative impact from burning fossil fuels issue is less than 75 years old so it's kinda difficult to see how that impacts on a graph that deals in thousands of years. Perhaps you have a graph that has greater granularity and deals in say units of a hundred years or similar.

[RolandRat]

My point was, whats done is done, its too late now for any individual to do anything about it, and endless talking about what "has" been done and showing graphs and studies etc doesnt mean a damn thing, in your lifetime, nothing will change it.

Suggest you re-visit the story of Canute

[kannot]

A couple of points:

Firstly, what's the source for the graph, do you have a link?

Secondly, the negative impact from burning fossil fuels issue is less than 75 years old so it's kinda difficult to see how that impacts on a graph that deals in thousands of years. Perhaps you have a graph that has greater granularity and deals in say units of a hundred years or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

[01322521959]

Ignorance is never a good enough excuse ...

[chiang mai]

A couple of points:

Firstly, what's the source for the graph, do you have a link?

Secondly, the negative impact from burning fossil fuels issue is less than 75 years old so it's kinda difficult to see how that impacts on a graph that deals in thousands of years. Perhaps you have a graph that has greater granularity and deals in say units of a hundred years or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Thanks, I'll read through that, what about the second point?

[chiang mai]

My point was, whats done is done, its too late now for any individual to do anything about it, and endless talking about what "has" been done and showing graphs and studies etc doesnt mean a damn thing, in your lifetime, nothing will change it.

Suggest you re-visit the story of Canute

You don't know that it can't be reversed, until people agree on the cause you will never know.

Here's a story for you, Robert the Bruce and spiders. http://www.storiestogrowby.com/stories/bruce_and_spider_body.html

[Bernard Flint]

I think the yanks and Cia are changing the climate with their new weapons.They are after the rubber in Thailand.

[RolandRat]

My point was, whats done is done, its too late now for any individual to do anything about it, and endless talking about what "has" been done and showing graphs and studies etc doesnt mean a damn thing, in your lifetime, nothing will change it.

Suggest you re-visit the story of Canute

You don't know that it can't be reversed, until people agree on the cause you will never know.

Here's a story for you, Robert the Bruce and spiders. http://www.storiestogrowby.com/stories/bruce_and_spider_body.html

Nice try, but totally irrelevant as it does not apply. What is / has happened is historic, its already done, you cant change history no matter how much you want to try. You just have to deal with what is.

You can make adjustments, improvements for the future but not whats already in place. And any of those improvements or adjusts wont be seen until you are long dead.

Which brings me full circle, deal with today, with what you can influence, and have the ability to accept that which you cannot change. In this case, historic events.

[chiang mai]

I think I'll keep score here, just out of curiosity. It seems we have:

2 = thinks it's a natural cycle.

1 = it can't be reversed hence it's man made

2 = I don't care

1 = I don't know

1 = thinks it's the CIA

3 = it's serious but I don't know what it is

Edited November 14, 2015 by chiang mai

[kannot]

A couple of points:

Firstly, what's the source for the graph, do you have a link?

Secondly, the negative impact from burning fossil fuels issue is less than 75 years old so it's kinda difficult to see how that impacts on a graph that deals in thousands of years. Perhaps you have a graph that has greater granularity and deals in say units of a hundred years or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Thanks, I'll read through that, what about the second point?

75 years doesnt even equate to a pin prick in time

[chiang mai]

A couple of points:

Firstly, what's the source for the graph, do you have a link?

Secondly, the negative impact from burning fossil fuels issue is less than 75 years old so it's kinda difficult to see how that impacts on a graph that deals in thousands of years. Perhaps you have a graph that has greater granularity and deals in say units of a hundred years or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Thanks, I'll read through that, what about the second point?

75 years doesnt even equate to a pin prick in time

Exactly my point, that's why it's so very hard to try and compare the events of the past seventy five years using history as a reference!

But what we do see in that time frame is an unprecedented level of airborne contamination resulting from the burning of fossil fuels which, when modeled, shows that global warming results. Perhaps that's why the people who should know about such things claim this is the case, science bodies, governments, NASA and the like. Or is the theory that the concept of global warming was created solely for political and economic reasons, it would have to be a pretty important reason to get every country in the world involved! Cue the conspiracy theorists that Middle Eastern oil is at the heart of the matter, please, please don't go there.

[kannot]

75 years doesnt even equate to a pin prick in time

Exactly my point, that's why it's so very hard to try and compare the events of the past seventy five years using history as a reference!

But what we do see in that time frame is an unprecedented level of airborne contamination resulting from the burning of fossil fuels which, when modeled, shows that global warming results. Perhaps that's why the people who should know about such things claim this is the case, science bodies, governments, NASA and the like. Or is the theory that the concept of global warming was created solely for political and economic reasons, it would have to be a pretty important reason to get every country in the world involved! Cue the conspiracy theorists that Middle Eastern oil is at the heart of the matter, please, please don't go there.

I wouldnt say unprecedented and Im not happy with "modelling" Im waiting for the announcement in 50 years or so that they were all wrong, I dont see warming as any threat, I dont think the models prove anything except they are models.

Whats interesting is we see ourselves as " so important" but reality is when we are all gone something else will take over, maybe plants who knows..either way we are irrelevant.

Edited November 15, 2015 by kannot

[joeyg]

belief

See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Line breaks: be¦lief

Pronunciation: /bɪˈliːf/

Definition of belief in English: noun

1An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:his belief in extraterrestrial life[WITH CLAUSE]: a belief that climate can be modified beneficially

[chiang mai]

75 years doesnt even equate to a pin prick in time

Exactly my point, that's why it's so very hard to try and compare the events of the past seventy five years using history as a reference!

But what we do see in that time frame is an unprecedented level of airborne contamination resulting from the burning of fossil fuels which, when modeled, shows that global warming results. Perhaps that's why the people who should know about such things claim this is the case, science bodies, governments, NASA and the like. Or is the theory that the concept of global warming was created solely for political and economic reasons, it would have to be a pretty important reason to get every country in the world involved! Cue the conspiracy theorists that Middle Eastern oil is at the heart of the matter, please, please don't go there.

I wouldnt say unprecedented and Im not happy with "modelling" Im waiting for the announcement in 50 years or so that they were all wrong, I dont see warming as any threat, I dont think the models prove anything except they are models.

Whats interesting is we see ourselves as " so important" but reality is when we are all gone something else will take over, maybe plants who knows..either way we are irrelevant.

If it's not unprecedented then what is it, I mean, there has never been the volume of fossil fuel burning in the life of the planet, as has taken place in the past seventy five years. And the temperature rises over the past two decades have been the largest ever recorded or known to man. So are those things coincidental, possibly, I suggest that on the balance of probability, they are connected in some way.

And I think models are useful when looking at data and trends, they let us look at potential futures on a what if basis. Of course no model is fool proof but they can provide a very useful indication of things to come.

As for being important: I think it will be a tragedy to loose forever the collective experiences and learnings of the human race through stupidity, "you were told it was fossil fuel burning but you didn't listen, what's the matter with you people" they will say. Who knows, maybe the collective learnings and experiences of the Martian people went the same way, such a waste really if they did.

[kannot]

75 years doesnt even equate to a pin prick in time

Exactly my point, that's why it's so very hard to try and compare the events of the past seventy five years using history as a reference!

But what we do see in that time frame is an unprecedented level of airborne contamination resulting from the burning of fossil fuels which, when modeled, shows that global warming results. Perhaps that's why the people who should know about such things claim this is the case, science bodies, governments, NASA and the like. Or is the theory that the concept of global warming was created solely for political and economic reasons, it would have to be a pretty important reason to get every country in the world involved! Cue the conspiracy theorists that Middle Eastern oil is at the heart of the matter, please, please don't go there.

I wouldnt say unprecedented and Im not happy with "modelling" Im waiting for the announcement in 50 years or so that they were all wrong, I dont see warming as any threat, I dont think the models prove anything except they are models.

Whats interesting is we see ourselves as " so important" but reality is when we are all gone something else will take over, maybe plants who knows..either way we are irrelevant.

If it's not unprecedented then what is it, I mean, there has never been the volume of fossil fuel burning in the life of the planet, as has taken place in the past seventy five years. And the temperature rises over the past two decades have been the largest ever recorded or known to man. So are those things coincidental, possibly, I suggest that on the balance of probability, they are connected in some way.

And I think models are useful when looking at data and trends, they let us look at potential futures on a what if basis. Of course no model is fool proof but they can provide a very useful indication of things to come.

As for being important: I think it will be a tragedy to loose forever the collective experiences and learnings of the human race through stupidity, "you were told it was fossil fuel burning but you didn't listen, what's the matter with you people" they will say. Who knows, maybe the collective learnings and experiences of the Martian people went the same way, such a waste really if they did.

man has been here in but the blink of an eye, look at the whole earth history of temperatures the rises are nothing compared to whats been, there have been way higher and lower temps., mans disappearance will be no loss in fact we are so insignificant its unbelievable.

Face facts man is stupid

[phycokiller]

NOTHING drastic is going to happen in my lifetime.

If it does, there is NOTHING I can do about it, as its on a "natures" scale.

The best you can do, IF you believe such things, is to prepare for it based on available information when it becomes imminent.

One thing is for sure "talking about it" will achieve nothing and have zero impact on any eventualities/outcome globally.

Worry about the things you can change/influence, not the things that all you can realistically do is try to cope with and live with.

(IMHO)

Im curious, why would you even post this comment considering what it says? are you trying to be ironic?

[chiang mai]

Here's a great read for the skeptics and contrarians and it's about a scientist who is one of your own:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34800829

"Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages with a global warming of 1.1C - which has nearly been reached already.

Prof Tol is regarded by many campaigners as a climate "sceptic".

In academic circles, this is actually an uncontroversial finding."

But it is controversial for climate contrarians, who often cite Professor Tol's work to suggest that we shouldn't worry about warming.

"I am worried about how this work is being interpreted, by Lord Ridley. In my opinion, [CO2 fertilisation] benefit of greening is not worth the price of all the negative changes," he said".

"We emit nine gigatons of carbon per year from our burning of fossil fuels, but there's a 100 gigatons lying just under the Siberia tundra. You have many-fold larger stores of carbon in the topsoil of tropical soils, or under the ice in the Arctic.

"If we don't manage the living ecosystems well enough they could start biting us from behind."

[arjunadawn]

Hot? Maybe, but released as news just prior to a climate conference strikes me as dubious. Hot? Maybe, but the expended trend from solar cycle receding will be cool over the next x years.

[kannot]

Here's a great read for the skeptics and contrarians and it's about a scientist who is one of your own:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34800829

"Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages with a global warming of 1.1C - which has nearly been reached already.

Prof Tol is regarded by many campaigners as a climate "sceptic".

In academic circles, this is actually an uncontroversial finding."

But it is controversial for climate contrarians, who often cite Professor Tol's work to suggest that we shouldn't worry about warming.

"I am worried about how this work is being interpreted, by Lord Ridley. In my opinion, [CO2 fertilisation] benefit of greening is not worth the price of all the negative changes," he said".

"We emit nine gigatons of carbon per year from our burning of fossil fuels, but there's a 100 gigatons lying just under the Siberia tundra. You have many-fold larger stores of carbon in the topsoil of tropical soils, or under the ice in the Arctic.

"If we don't manage the living ecosystems well enough they could start biting us from behind."

and the temperatures when life was most abundant on earth was?

[chiang mai]

Is the answer 42?

[kannot]

Is the answer 42?

yes........... but metres ,centimetres, fluid ounces or light years?

[kannot]

Here's a great read for the skeptics and contrarians and it's about a scientist who is one of your own:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34800829

"Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages with a global warming of 1.1C - which has nearly been reached already.

Prof Tol is regarded by many campaigners as a climate "sceptic".

In academic circles, this is actually an uncontroversial finding."

But it is controversial for climate contrarians, who often cite Professor Tol's work to suggest that we shouldn't worry about warming.

"I am worried about how this work is being interpreted, by Lord Ridley. In my opinion, [CO2 fertilisation] benefit of greening is not worth the price of all the negative changes," he said".

"We emit nine gigatons of carbon per year from our burning of fossil fuels, but there's a 100 gigatons lying just under the Siberia tundra. You have many-fold larger stores of carbon in the topsoil of tropical soils, or under the ice in the Arctic.

"If we don't manage the living ecosystems well enough they could start biting us from behind."

But you see it focuses only on MAN.... selfish man, probably beneficial if we are all removed from the planet

[chiang mai]

With all due respect, the selfish man story is wearing a tad thin and whilst we can all probably agree with you, it has little to do with the subject which is a deadly heat wave in Thailand its cause, global warming. I think we've already seen from the replies in this thread that only a small percentage of posters actually believe in global warming and its cause being the burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps if more people were to be convinced of those things it would put pressure on the conspiracy theory nuts (and similar) to be less selfish and actually do something about the problem.

And before somebody says it's too late, I'm having none of that personally, where there's a will there's a way.

[kannot]

With all due respect, the selfish man story is wearing a tad thin and whilst we can all probably agree with you, it has little to do with the subject which is a deadly heat wave in Thailand its cause, global warming. I think we've already seen from the replies in this thread that only a small percentage of posters actually believe in global warming and its cause being the burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps if more people were to be convinced of those things it would put pressure on the conspiracy theory nuts (and similar) to be less selfish and actually do something about the problem.

And before somebody says it's too late, I'm having none of that personally, where there's a will there's a way.

do you for one minute think Thailand ( lets keep it relevant) China India and the other countries around here care at all.? Thais cant even keep their country clean.

I dont know the cause of global warming and at best its all seems rather "perhaps maybe" the real solution would be mass reduction of population forgetting a free market stop most manufacturing, all air plane car and boat travel etc etc it isnt going to happen is it? instead they will increase until Oil runs out and if no other solution is found probably the war to end all wars and if anyone is left we will drift back to pre historic living.

Petty stupid conferences of reducing emissions will do nothing and all based on spurious models/predictions.

Selfish man IS the main cause

[Mbaki]

This year was almost unbearable for me after 13 years and I have vowed not to be here another summer. Its not just the heat its the pollution very high levels of co2 in cm. It kills you after a while. Not negative just true.

No pollution where I am [emoji4][emoji106]

[baneko]

Heatwave...Ice Age...Heatwave. I thought it had already started.

[Assurancetourix]

Few months back, stayed home because of security reasons.

Last month, worried about rain.

Last week, high season and car crashes scared me

Now I must stay home because of the heat?????

on a serious note....i am convinced the two real killers in Thailand is heat and pollution. third might be aids, not sure.

if old....avoid the heat and save your life.

if really young.....tell your parents you are not safe

when the pollution AND heat comes.....the cost savings of moving to Thailand will become negative...

Well Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia are cheaper then Thailand.....

Not Laos, for sure !

I was there last week during 10 days on my MTB, so not only in Vientiane or Luang Prabang;

all is more expensive than in Thailand and the food...I prefer not to talk about it ..

Was a real relief to come back to Sakon Nakhon province.

[Assurancetourix]

With all due respect, the selfish man story is wearing a tad thin and whilst we can all probably agree with you, it has little to do with the subject which is a deadly heat wave in Thailand its cause, global warming. I think we've already seen from the replies in this thread that only a small percentage of posters actually believe in global warming and its cause being the burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps if more people were to be convinced of those things it would put pressure on the conspiracy theory nuts (and similar) to be less selfish and actually do something about the problem.

And before somebody says it's too late, I'm having none of that personally, where there's a will there's a way.

do you for one minute think Thailand ( lets keep it relevant) China India and the other countries around here care at all.? Thais cant even keep their country clean.

I dont know the cause of global warming and at best its all seems rather "perhaps maybe" the real solution would be mass reduction of population forgetting a free market stop most manufacturing, all air plane car and boat travel etc etc it isnt going to happen is it? instead they will increase until Oil runs out and if no other solution is found probably the war to end all wars and if anyone is left we will drift back to pre historic living.

Petty stupid conferences of reducing emissions will do nothing and all based on spurious models/predictions.

Selfish man IS the main cause

Selfish man surely but you forget another reason :

when Humans will become adult they will understand that all gods , in the sky or where they want they are , don't exist .

as written, when pigs fly ....

[Stocky]

Here's a great read for the skeptics and contrarians and it's about a scientist who is one of your own:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34800829

"Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages with a global warming of 1.1C - which has nearly been reached already.

Prof Tol is regarded by many campaigners as a climate "sceptic".

In academic circles, this is actually an uncontroversial finding."

But it is controversial for climate contrarians, who often cite Professor Tol's work to suggest that we shouldn't worry about warming.

"I am worried about how this work is being interpreted, by Lord Ridley. In my opinion, [CO2 fertilisation] benefit of greening is not worth the price of all the negative changes," he said".

"We emit nine gigatons of carbon per year from our burning of fossil fuels, but there's a 100 gigatons lying just under the Siberia tundra. You have many-fold larger stores of carbon in the topsoil of tropical soils, or under the ice in the Arctic.

"If we don't manage the living ecosystems well enough they could start biting us from behind."

and the temperatures when life was most abundant on earth was?

But there weren't any coastal mega-cities nor 7 billion humans all in need of food, water and natural resources.