Prev Page 3 of 51 1 2 3 4 5 Next » This topic is locked Go to first unread post 1254 replies to this topic

[meemiathai]

dumspero, on 2007-04-24 11:57:58, said:

First, I don't think any of the posters on here have any sound idea whether the professor makes sense or not. This is especially so since these are very technical issues that are sometimes reported by people who don't understand what's being said--so they get it down wrong or take it out of context. A poster has already made this point.

Second, what's the basis to generalize to other professors or Thais, generally? That's just more of the prejudice one sees on here on a regular basis. And please, there's a big difference between criticizing something and making sweeping generalizations. The former is ok if rational, the latter is naked prejudice.

You just don't get it. These people criticize thailand because they love thailand.

[meemiathai]

easy_jim, on 2007-04-24 12:18:07, said:

I'm a bit surprised by the simplistic responses to this Professor's claim. He may or may not be right but either way the issue is not as simple as most posters seem to think.

The sea is not level. It is pulled out of shape by a complex interaction of the magnetic pulls of the earth, the moon and the sun and the lay of the land around which the water is pulled. You cannot make broad generalisations about sea level for the whole planet.

This is why the Gulf of Thailand has a diurnal tide (only two tides a day) while the Andaman Sea has the more common semidiurnal tide (four tides a day).

Are you thai too? Heys guys let's have a laugh at him too! Come on! Come on!

[cdnvic]

ThaiGoon, on 2007-04-24 10:19:50, said:

cdnvic, on 2007-04-24 10:13:03, said:

I think people are getting thrown off by the variations in sea level that exist throughout the world. While these variations are a fact, they do not mean that water from melting glaciers and snow caps are all going to pile up somewhere while the rest of the world's oceans remain unchanged.

The mean sea levels of the Atlantic and pacific will continue to be different from each other, but the overall level of all seas around the world will rise accordingly as well. The differences due to density, current, and wind patterns will still be there to cause differences, but they cannot stop the volume of contiguous water that makes up the world's oceans from growing larger.

It would have been nice if you had cited the source of that comment as well. I was just reading very similar things especially this part "The differences due to density, current, and wind patterns" on the internet somewhere. Hmmm. (I understand you wanted to appear smart, but at least cite the source.)

I didn't cite the source because the comment came from my own knowledge. I didn't have to look it up.

If you want to compare IQ's I'll stand toe to toe with you any day and guarantee you will emerge bruised and battered. I've seen how you debate with "idiot" and "stupid" and your contributions that you paste from elsewhere, and to be honest I think I can say quite confidently that my intelligence is superior to yours, and I'm far from the smartest guy around here so I suggest you go back to your books and study like a good little goon because if you want to start measuring up intelligence then you are far out of your league here boy.

You bleat on about how people here are insulting Thailand but in reality little casts Thailand in a worse light than your rude behaviour here.

[steveromagnino]

PeaceBlondie, on 2007-04-24 10:38:13, said:

I ain't no hydrologist, but surely every language and culture has a cliche such as "water seeks its own level." During Hurricane Mitch, I stood on a plot of ground that was flooding, and four local Nicaraguan men were telling my Colombian profesora how to change her plot to prevent more mudslides into her lake house. I volunteered to contact my friend who has an MS in civil engineering and is practically a hydrologist, but the natives figured it out just fine.

I don't think most of the comedians in this thread were denigrating all Thais; just this expert hydrologist. And he has a point, up to a point.

Then again, how much land ice is melting?

well actually, there are a few factors at play. The issue of water density relative to temperature is a major one; so just talking about the impact of melting water is not enough - if the mean temp of each area goes up beyond 4 degrees C which is when water is densest (if I recall correctly) then it starts expanding, theoretically if might contract if the ice melts but is then going from sub zero up to 4C, as it would be denser and thus occupy less volume but this would be area specific; additionally, given that ice is fresh water, it also means that as it melts, the water borne ice such as Antartica is currently above water; upon melting it then does impact the mean water level as it was previously suspended above the water.

Your point water seeks its own level is true, but what factors affect level? Moon, sun, earth rotation, airpressure variation, prevailing current, sailinity variation, rainfall. The prevailing weather can push a lot of water up into the gulf. With certain weather patterns developing, we might see massive increases in water level in the gulf...or drops. That will be caused by larger worldwide patterns such as El Nino/la Nina/Gulfstream etc etc and many of these are caused by the salinity balance in the ocean which causes circulation of the water flow.

The average person (engineer or otherwise) is unlikely to be able to understand the macro factors involved in water height around the world in the same way that I also cannot. But I am not foolish or stupid enough to shoot my mouth off, just because my own simplistic education suggests that if the ice cubes melt the water level in my glass goes up, so therefore the water level is going to go up everywhere by an equal amount in the same way when it happens on a global scale.

Fascinating subject.

[Swelters]

Suggest reading the man's article before you cast your vote for village idiot.

Swelters

[aussiestyle1983]

So lets just say all the ice caps will melt one day, which they most likely will do. Considereing some of the caps that are below sea level won't really make much difference in terms of the water volume increasing or sea level rising, but I am guessing that the rise in sea levels will come from all the ice/ parts of the ice caps that are only above sea level that melt. So lets just say everything melts, what would be the maximum level the seas would rise?
This is very interesting because it is obviously going to happen and low lying areas in some places will be covered and people will need to re-locate, but just what sort of a rise are we talking about if everything melts? 1-2 or maybe even more meters........................

[midas]

I know there has been a lot of criticism on Fox News and CNN of the Al Gore Movie
" An Inconvenient Truth " - I have an open mind and when I saw it two months ago
I confess I believed what was presented - surely even if there are inaccuracies it can't all be wrong ?
In the movie he shows places like Shanghai and Calcutta being very severely affected-
so if they will be so badly hit I dont see why the Gulf of Thailand will be any different

[PeaceBlondie]

But aussiestyle, I don't know if it's quite that obvious. Remember that silly movie from two years ago, The Day After Tomorrow? It created such a new ice age that the top 65% of North America was frozen solid, and the Yankees swam the Rio Grande and became American wetbacks in Mexico!!

I begin to wonder if anything is obvious anymore. Everything is caused by 17 factors which create 87 effects. Like the man said, even supercomputers have difficulty making predictive models. Besides, wasn't it obvious that Young Einstein was a factual movie?

[bkkandrew]

meemiathai, on 2007-04-24 12:23:56, said:

dumspero, on 2007-04-24 11:57:58, said:

First, I don't think any of the posters on here have any sound idea whether the professor makes sense or not. This is especially so since these are very technical issues that are sometimes reported by people who don't understand what's being said--so they get it down wrong or take it out of context. A poster has already made this point.

Second, what's the basis to generalize to other professors or Thais, generally? That's just more of the prejudice one sees on here on a regular basis. And please, there's a big difference between criticizing something and making sweeping generalizations. The former is ok if rational, the latter is naked prejudice.

You just don't get it. These people criticize thailand because they love thailand.

Is that some expat version of "tough love"?

[bronco]

aussiestyle1983, on 2007-04-24 16:17:14, said:

So lets just say all the ice caps will melt one day, which they most likely will do. Considereing some of the caps that are below sea level won't really make much difference in terms of the water volume increasing or sea level rising, but I am guessing that the rise in sea levels will come from all the ice/ parts of the ice caps that are only above sea level that melt. So lets just say everything melts, what would be the maximum level the seas would rise?
This is very interesting because it is obviously going to happen and low lying areas in some places will be covered and people will need to re-locate, but just what sort of a rise are we talking about if everything melts? 1-2 or maybe even more meters........................

Climate change will not happen, john howard just said it aint true again.

[bkkandrew]

midas, on 2007-04-24 14:06:39, said:

I know there has been a lot of criticism on Fox News and CNN of the Al Gore Movie
" An Inconvenient Truth " - I have an open mind and when I saw it two months ago
I confess I believed what was presented - surely even if there are inaccuracies it can't all be wrong ?
In the movie he shows places like Shanghai and Calcutta being very severely affected-
so if they will be so badly hit I dont see why the Gulf of Thailand will be any different

My impression exactly...

Also, I thought that his comment about Thailand being "too far away" from the melting glaciers was the bit that has exposed him as being foolish. Distance is no bar to increasing volume of water in the sea overall.

Maybe he was misquoted, or maybe the ministry of information and communication technology has blocked the water surge...

[Mid]

Quote

Also, I thought that his comment about Thailand being "too far away" from the melting glaciers was the bit that has exposed him as being foolish. Distance is no bar to increasing volume of water in the sea overall.

snap

[AmeriThai]

In a worst-case scenario, if all the glaciers on the planet melted, it’d dump enough water into the ocean to raise the level more than anyone would like. If anyone thinks we’re overcrowded now, just imagine what it’d be like when the land space is smaller. Don’t think so? Then you'd better figure in all the glacial ice covering Greenland and Antarctica.

The reason it may not seem like a big deal is because the bulk of all this ice is located on landmasses, which are above sea level. Dump it all into the ocean and the water’s gonna rise.

Just because there are height differences in various parts of the ocean doesn’t mean Thailand won’t be affected. Regarding plate tectonics, although things can happen suddenly, in general it's a very slow process in geological terms. But the variations of height differences of the ocean have nothing to do with volume. A simple experiment proves that.

Fill a tub halfway with water. Draw a few things at the water level and above to represent land level. Measure the depth. Now add a block of ice to the water. Now measure the depth again. The level will have increased in height and be above the "land" drawings because of displacement. When the ice has completely melted in the water, the water will remain at the same higher level because of volume. Now put that on a larger scale, where you have ice covering a continent a mile or so deep.

[wilko]

Come on! - Land can rise and fall and sea levels are not "level"

[taxexile]

Quote

Fill a tub halfway with water. Draw a few things at the water level and above to represent land level. Measure the depth. Now add a block of ice to the water. Now measure the depth again. The level will have increased in height and be above the "land" drawings because of displacement. When the ice has completely melted in the water, the water will remain at the same higher level because of volume. Now put that on a larger scale, where you have ice covering a continent a mile or so deep.

thank you archimedes ,

so there you have it .

conclusive proof.

[cdnvic]

wilko, on 2007-04-24 15:53:34, said:

Come on! - Land can rise and fall and sea levels are not "level"

What does this mean specifically?

[longway]

cdnvic, on 2007-04-24 12:36:09, said:

ThaiGoon, on 2007-04-24 10:19:50, said:

cdnvic, on 2007-04-24 10:13:03, said:

I think people are getting thrown off by the variations in sea level that exist throughout the world. While these variations are a fact, they do not mean that water from melting glaciers and snow caps are all going to pile up somewhere while the rest of the world's oceans remain unchanged.

The mean sea levels of the Atlantic and pacific will continue to be different from each other, but the overall level of all seas around the world will rise accordingly as well. The differences due to density, current, and wind patterns will still be there to cause differences, but they cannot stop the volume of contiguous water that makes up the world's oceans from growing larger.

It would have been nice if you had cited the source of that comment as well. I was just reading very similar things especially this part "The differences due to density, current, and wind patterns" on the internet somewhere. Hmmm. (I understand you wanted to appear smart, but at least cite the source.)

I didn't cite the source because the comment came from my own knowledge. I didn't have to look it up.

If you want to compare IQ's I'll stand toe to toe with you any day and guarantee you will emerge bruised and battered. I've seen how you debate with "idiot" and "stupid" and your contributions that you paste from elsewhere, and to be honest I think I can say quite confidently that my intelligence is superior to yours, and I'm far from the smartest guy around here so I suggest you go back to your books and study like a good little goon because if you want to start measuring up intelligence then you are far out of your league here boy.

You bleat on about how people here are insulting Thailand but in reality little casts Thailand in a worse light than your rude behaviour here.

he criticises farangs because he loves them. he just wants whats best for them.

[jumnien]

Even if an enormously large object like Al Gore falls into the North Atlantic, sea levels in the Gulf of Thailand are unlikely to rise. If he loses the next election and retires in Jomtien, all bets are off.

[astral]

Wonderful......

I put it down to the fact that Thais only shower and have never used a bath.

When you fill the bath the water always expands to fill the bath,
but this will be little known to most Thais.

[midas]

mdeland, on 2007-04-24 16:22:58, said:

Even if an enormously large object like Al Gore falls into the North Atlantic, sea levels in the Gulf of Thailand are unlikely to rise. If he loses the next election and retires in Jomtien, all bets are off.

Thanks mdeland - yet another one of your thoroughly constructive postings
Are you smoking something down in Hua Hin

[Swelters]

I love armchair expertise, it has it's own style conventions, such as using phrases like "it just ain't that way" to suggest that the contributor could even be a complete fool (e.g. would not know how to speak proper english) and even then he wouild know that the person being ridiculed was wrong. This gets especially rich when the armchair expert has missed a major point (for example, naively assumes global crustal stability) and is too lazy to think about his own assumptions or read the reference which has been provided. A band of such knee-slapping fellows may appear to be a mob of ignorant oafs.

Jack Swelters

[cdnvic]

So what qualifies you to be any different?

[LOS4words]

Ofcourse they will be affected but the guys isnt totally wrong. Landmass closest to the glaciers will absorb more water than those closer to the equator.

[John K]

I guess when you look at a globe the water will need to run uphill to fill the gulf and that will stop it from happening. I hope they don’t use the same logic with the nuclear plant they want to build.

[the gent]

Swelters, on 2007-04-24 17:16:06, said:

I love armchair expertise, it has it's own style conventions, such as using phrases like "it just ain't that way" to suggest that the contributor could even be a complete fool (e.g. would not know how to speak proper english) and even then he wouild know that the person being ridiculed was wrong. This gets especially rich when the armchair expert has missed a major point (for example, naively assumes global crustal stability) and is too lazy to think about his own assumptions or read the reference which has been provided. A band of such knee-slapping fellows may appear to be a mob of ignorant oafs.

Jack Swelters

Careful Jack, next thing you'll be saying is the world ain't flat......

Anyways, if all those ice cubes do melt all at the same time don't it mean that more evaporation takes place, more clouds form, the colder it gets and all that fresh water bungs up the Atlantic conveyor and then it gets real cold real quick and then all them ice cubes come back? Thai man speak good, maybe na?

Sure I read about it somewheres but it could've been in a Xmas cracker or something like, innit?