Jump to content
BANGKOK

Recommended Posts

Korat plain, we had quite a bit of rain early in the year, like flooding my soi up over the driveway sill; an event I usually associate with rain season proper. 

 

5 or so years ago, we were sat on the patio in sweats, socks, jackets and hats enjoying Jan/Feb cold weather pushing down.  Last few years has been abbreviated, warmer "winters" and warmer summers, then this recent off pattern rain, and then not much of it in "rain" season.  Tree in the garden at the country house, always dropped its leaves going into cool/dry season.  Not this past year.

 

Sometime last year, vaguely recall seeing an article about La Nina influencing a wetter year for Asia/SE Asia.  Seemed on track early on, but has petered out. Sure could use some rain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the bulls at the Royal Ploughing Ceremony this year ate was interpreted as rains would be average and rice crop good. We still got some time for them to be proven correct. We can always hope.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

You can have some of our Chaing Mai rain.

It's been pouring down for the past two weeks.

Just one clear morning (yesterday) then it poured down all afternoon again.

Lucky you,  where I live in Rayong we have only had one rain in the last two weeks,  watering everyday, I have a large pond but if we dont get some decent rain in the next two months  it is going to be a major problem 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, flexomike said:

Lucky you,  where I live in Rayong we have only had one rain in the last two weeks,  watering everyday, I have a large pond but if we dont get some decent rain in the next two months  it is going to be a major problem 

Torrential rain just started here again 5 minutes ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snackbar said:

Climate - the average over thirty plus years. 

 

You cannot assume climate change over two or three years of empirical evidence. To do so isn’t very bright.

 

Global warming predictions are based on computer models that only differentiate between one & zero, and all have proven to be widely inaccurate.

 

It’s all fake news.

555 No sense in listening to the scientific community. What do they know!?

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brunolem said:

El Nino is over (see NOAA) but it is probably too late for this year... 

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

 

This seems to be the relevant bit:  Does a return to neutral mean that average weather conditions are expected to prevail around the globe? As Michelle pointed out a couple years ago, the answer is an emphatic NO.  A return to neutral means that we will not get that predictable influence from El Niño or La Niña, but the atmosphere is certainly capable of wild swings without a push from either influence.  Basically, ENSO-neutral means that the job of seasonal forecasters gets a bit tougher because we do not have that ENSO influence that we potentially can predict several months in advance (in a probabilistic form).           

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snackbar said:

Climate - the average over thirty plus years. 

 

You cannot assume climate change over two or three years of empirical evidence. To do so isn’t very bright.

 

Global warming predictions are based on computer models that only differentiate between one & zero, and all have proven to be widely inaccurate.

 

It’s all fake news.

no it isn't .. it is real news  not fox news or GOP news 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, IsaanAussie said:

I have a significant interest in our rice farm and have followed many forecasters with all their lovely graphical displays. One in ten might get close at best. So I have gone more Lo-Tech and follow the Billy Connelly weather forecasting method. "If you want to know what the weather will do, don't turn on the Tele. Stick your head out the <deleted> window!"

 

image.png.abca00974ca8f4583fbd84f53bc11d96.png 

Edited by khwaibah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CGW said:

You reckon? what gloom and doom have you been reading, it would take thousands of years to clear the Amazon, in the meantime it would be growing back, its huge -well over 2,000,000 square miles, makes a great "alarmist" story though!

Thousands of years... 

You grossly underestimate human power of destruction. 

 

It took only a few decades for small farmers, without any modern machinery (chainsaw, bulldozer...), to remove 170,000 sq km of rainforest in Isaan... 

 

And look how fast Borneo's rainforest was razed and replaced by palm oil trees. 

 

The Amazon is being cut at a rate of one football field per... second! 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

Indeed. Climate change takes place over centuries. Now everyone expects it to happen before lunch.

Natural climate change takes place over centuries, or rather millenia. 

 

Manmade climate change on the other hand takes place much faster, thanks to technology. 

 

Trump, a major climate change denier, would now like to buy Greenland because it may soon be free of ice, thanks to... climate change! 

 

The deniers are also busy fighting over the Arctic and the resources that will become accessible once the ice gone, thanks to... climate change. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

555 No sense in listening to the scientific community. What do they know!?

 

One thing they do know is where there next pay check is coming from :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

The Amazon is being cut at a rate of one football field per... second! 

If you can back up that statement with solid evidence I will indeed have some concern, I read a article somewhere that stated this "fact" I just thought it was alarmist nonsense, another article stated one football field per minute - big difference, kindly prove otherwise?

Edited by CGW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...