Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[jumnien]

The tides are getting even lower lately in Hua Hin, these past few years have been amazing. It might be from soil erosion on shore. Maybe the sea level isn't getting lower. It just seems lower because the silt is being deposited in the gulf and washed ashore. That's probably the natural evolution of these river delta regions. It will probably accelerate with the years.

[yumidesign]

The tides are getting even lower lately in Hua Hin, these past few years have been amazing. It might be from soil erosion on shore. Maybe the sea level isn't getting lower. It just seems lower because the silt is being deposited in the gulf and washed ashore. That's probably the natural evolution of these river delta regions. It will probably accelerate with the years.

Why is the sea level on the botanical gardens sand stone sea wall in sydney the same as it was 50 years ago???

[jumnien]

The tides are getting even lower lately in Hua Hin, these past few years have been amazing. It might be from soil erosion on shore. Maybe the sea level isn't getting lower. It just seems lower because the silt is being deposited in the gulf and washed ashore. That's probably the natural evolution of these river delta regions. It will probably accelerate with the years.

Why is the sea level on the botanical gardens sand stone sea wall in sydney the same as it was 50 years ago???

Sandstone sea walls reportedly supress sea levels around the globe. No, seriously, we don't know. Part of the earth is rising due to volcanic activity and techtonic plate shifts and sediment washing down into the ocean makes it seem like sea levels are falling. It's all relative; the only constant is change. When things stop changing, you'd better be worried. Sydney looks like a lovely city and I'd love to see it someday. It was featured in the film "Nemo" and it's always intrigued me since.

Edited March 23, 2009 by jumnien

[aussiejosh]

Al Gore once led the charge against what he called global cooling, now its changed to global warming. But the thing about climate change is that the planet wants to swing against the extremes as soon as they occur, so global warming by shifting the water and the ice caps could potentially cause and ice age. If you look at ice age patterns you would see we are due for one anyway. According to rock studies which can accurately track how often they have occurred throughout millions of years.

We can also track the amount of carbon in the atmosphere through carbon dating and there is a huge increase from previous millenniums, no other creature has been able to dramatically effect carbon levels as humans, and to say that we can't effect our climate is stupid, we have proven we are increasing the speed of climate change.

[dave_boo]

The tides are getting even lower lately in Hua Hin, these past few years have been amazing. It might be from soil erosion on shore. Maybe the sea level isn't getting lower. It just seems lower because the silt is being deposited in the gulf and washed ashore. That's probably the natural evolution of these river delta regions. It will probably accelerate with the years.

Why is the sea level on the botanical gardens sand stone sea wall in sydney the same as it was 50 years ago???

Sigh....

Sydney 33°51′S

Bangkok 13°45′N

That means that Sydney is 3753 km from the equator. Bangkok is 1524 km. I.E., the earth is spinning at 40 075/24 km/h (~1670 km/h). If you take the speed x the cosine of the latitudes of each location, you'll quickly see that the earth is spinning at 1387 km/h at Sydney and 1622 km/h at Bangkok. Centifugal force will quickly redistribute the water to the area with the quickest momentum and than onwards to that with less. Since the speed of rotation is ~17% greater in Bangkok than in Sydney, do you suppose that the change in Bangkok would be greater than that observed in Sydney?

[canuckamuck]

Yes they are real scientists, but did you notice that the majority of them are speaking outside their field? So <deleted> is a GEOLOGIST doing offering his opinion on climate change? Ditto for a Physicist, a pencil pusher at a technology and research department of a uni,a paleontologist, etc.

If we're to believe that this is exactly what Mr. Haplo Smit said, he's an idiot who believes that discarding information (perhaps that which doesn't fit into his preconceived notions?) is the correct answer to understanding models.

Mr. James A Peden. Publishes 2 (two!) papers, the only one of which to be cited at all does not even have his name as first author. In fact, neither of them have a thing to do with climatology-and they were published ~40 (forty!) years ago. You do know what he does now, right? Web design--hardly the celebrated scientist that would be able to debunk real scientists.

Delgado Domingos. Has a degree in Mechanical engineering. Searching for those 150 published articles was a waste of time; either they've been buried by other * Delgado Domingos who have published since him (meaning that he has published nothing for peer review in quite some time) and or they've been on a subject that does not cover climatology.

Dr. Joanne Simpson did not debunk climate change, but true to being a scientist, she remains skeptical. For those that either did not stay awake during the science classes, that's the true foundation of science. The fact that those who are in the field have a hypothesis and are putting it to the test to determine if in fact it is a theory are demonstrating the same traits. If you wish to focus on the "no longer affliated.." part, read up on this lady. Here's a quote from her NASA bio "Although Simpson's praises have been sung publicly as an example of a woman who has defied the odds and the male chauvinism of her profession". So that section of the quote isn't quite so memorable if she's been doing exactly that, for real or supposed, her entire life.

My point in this part of the thread at least was: that there are respected scientists who are not falling in line with ACC hype. Plachon made a hyperbolic statement that required an answer. I answered with some evidence he was wrong. My point is that science in this day and age is more about commerce than it is about truth.

But to answer Dave Boo, who is someone I respect greatly by his wisdom in the CBR thread among other places, is that: being represented by a large body of scientists from different fields only adds credit to their claims. Many types of sciences are involved in the climate change discussion. Recently palentoligists have had a lot to say about Global warming. Thai Visa is proof enough that you don't have to be working in a specific field in order to have a qualified or an asinine answer. And I also might say that many of the faces of the ACC paranoia have absolutely no scientific background whatsoever (celebrities, politicians).

[canuckamuck]

Yikes, this debate here on T.Visa is getting interestingly technical.

The quote from Geologist Dr. David Gee: "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" ...is astounding in itself. How does he explain whole giant glaciers disappearing (and not recovering) in places where such glaciers existed for hundreds of years. How does he explain that Europe, Australia, N.America, are registering several of their top 10 all-time highest annual temperature averages within the past 10 years? How does he explain fields of lakes on Greenland, where lakes historically never existed earlier?

And Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland saying, "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." Duh, hello Mr Smit: Climate models can be used several ways: to explain what happened earlier, to explain what is happening now, and as projections for future events.

I admit, I'm not a Nobel prize winner. Neither do I have a personal axe to grind against Gore - as some of the quoted scientists appear to have (accolade-envy, perhaps?). I know human overpopulation is a dire threat to the other species of this planet. It's not something that's going to happen some time in the future - it's going on right now! The carrying capacity of this planet for our one species has long been passed. Whether or not one chooses to believe in global warming, the problem of too many people scrambling after too few resources is real. With masses of people, comes large-scale habitat destruction and pollution. It's been happening since Babylonian times and is deepening month by month.

Actually, the economic tsunami might be offering a tad bit of relief, as rapacious consumers aren't buying as many polluting machines and fossil fuels as they would ordinarily buy - if their credit cards had no limits - as before. .....and developers aren't as credit fueled to 'pave paradise, put in a parking lot' (to quote the great folk singer Joni Mitchell).

Overpopulation is caused by global warming?

[dave_boo]

My point in this part of the thread at least was: that there are respected scientists who are not falling in line with ACC hype. Plachon made a hyperbolic statement that required an answer. I answered with some evidence he was wrong. My point is that science in this day and age is more about commerce than it is about truth.

But to answer Dave Boo, who is someone I respect greatly by his wisdom in the CBR thread among other places, is that: being represented by a large body of scientists from different fields only adds credit to their claims. Many types of sciences are involved in the climate change discussion. Recently palentoligists have had a lot to say about Global warming. Thai Visa is proof enough that you don't have to be working in a specific field in order to have a qualified or an asinine answer. And I also might say that many of the faces of the ACC paranoia have absolutely no scientific background whatsoever (celebrities, politicians).

Oh, you're making my blush, do stop (no, I was joking--keep stoking my ego!).

And as far as being a TV member and talking out your rectum....unfortunately there's too many examples to disprove you.  I do take issue though with assertions that those scientists who are vehemently anti-climate change are respected.  For the large part, perhaps in their field, but there is a significant portion who are quacks and the lack of peer reviewed and published papers from these 'respected' scientists is astounding if we are too take them seriously.

I do accept that climatology is in its infancy.  And that understanding the past is necessary to understand the present and future.  I do also strongly like to remind lay people (of which I am one!) that the earth is much different than what it was during the periods that people like to point out as examples to disprove climate change.  Different fauna and flora.  Different core temperature.  ETC.  And those differences are MUCH greater than the differences in proven change that climatists are currently worried about and anti-climate change pundits dismiss as insignificant.  So attempting to say that you can discount supposedly small changes because they're insignificant, and yet point to major change in the biosphere and claim that is what the world is supposed to be like is disingenious at best.

[ExoticMatter]

The Albedo effect is a scary thing due to its positive feedback nature. There being less 'mirror' ice/snow to reflect heat back to space as it melts can only escalate (the temp) in a possibly exponential way; Making the time domain very short indeed.

Extra heat evaporates the oceans which create cloud/mist which keeps the heat in more (like on Venus) hence more positive feedback.

mmm or could global dimming save us all

personally I like the taste of freshly thawed Alaskan Wooly Mammouth

[jumnien]

The tides are getting even lower lately in Hua Hin, these past few years have been amazing. It might be from soil erosion on shore. Maybe the sea level isn't getting lower. It just seems lower because the silt is being deposited in the gulf and washed ashore. That's probably the natural evolution of these river delta regions. It will probably accelerate with the years.

Why is the sea level on the botanical gardens sand stone sea wall in sydney the same as it was 50 years ago???

Sigh....

Sydney 33°51′S

Bangkok 13°45′N

That means that Sydney is 3753 km from the equator. Bangkok is 1524 km. I.E., the earth is spinning at 40 075/24 km/h (~1670 km/h). If you take the speed x the cosine of the latitudes of each location, you'll quickly see that the earth is spinning at 1387 km/h at Sydney and 1622 km/h at Bangkok. Centifugal force will quickly redistribute the water to the area with the quickest momentum and than onwards to that with less. Since the speed of rotation is ~17% greater in Bangkok than in Sydney, do you suppose that the change in Bangkok would be greater than that observed in Sydney?

A few weeks ago, a British guy was working on anti-gravity machine made from old water-aerators from abandoned shrimp farms near Khao Sam Roi Yod. Anyway, he hooked it up, flipped the switch and was flicked by the centrifical force right off the planet. His wife is very worried as he only has 3 days left before he has to report to immigration for his 90-day reporting.

[yumidesign]

"Why is the sea level on the botanical gardens sand stone sea wall in sydney the same as it was 50 years ago???"

Sigh....

Sydney 33°51′S

Bangkok 13°45′N

That means that Sydney is 3753 km from the equator. Bangkok is 1524 km. I.E., the earth is spinning at 40 075/24 km/h (~1670 km/h). If you take the speed x the cosine of the latitudes of each location, you'll quickly see that the earth is spinning at 1387 km/h at Sydney and 1622 km/h at Bangkok. Centifugal force will quickly redistribute the water to the area with the quickest momentum and than onwards to that with less. Since the speed of rotation is ~17% greater in Bangkok than in Sydney, do you suppose that the change in Bangkok would be greater than that observed in Sydney?

A few weeks ago, a British guy was working on anti-gravity machine made from old water-aerators from abandoned shrimp farms near Khao Sam Roi Yod. Anyway, he hooked it up, flipped the switch and was flicked by the centrifical force right off the planet. His wife is very worried as he only has 3 days left before he has to report to immigration for his 90-day reporting.

TOO funny

[Thaddeus]

If you look at ice age patterns you would see we are due for one anyway.

Source for that snippet of info please.

[canuckamuck]

My point in this part of the thread at least was: that there are respected scientists who are not falling in line with ACC hype. Plachon made a hyperbolic statement that required an answer. I answered with some evidence he was wrong. My point is that science in this day and age is more about commerce than it is about truth.

But to answer Dave Boo, who is someone I respect greatly by his wisdom in the CBR thread among other places, is that: being represented by a large body of scientists from different fields only adds credit to their claims. Many types of sciences are involved in the climate change discussion. Recently palentoligists have had a lot to say about Global warming. Thai Visa is proof enough that you don't have to be working in a specific field in order to have a qualified or an asinine answer. And I also might say that many of the faces of the ACC paranoia have absolutely no scientific background whatsoever (celebrities, politicians).

Oh, you're making my blush, do stop (no, I was joking--keep stoking my ego!).

And as far as being a TV member and talking out your rectum....unfortunately there's too many examples to disprove you. I do take issue though with assertions that those scientists who are vehemently anti-climate change are respected. For the large part, perhaps in their field, but there is a significant portion who are quacks and the lack of peer reviewed and published papers from these 'respected' scientists is astounding if we are too take them seriously.

I do accept that climatology is in its infancy. And that understanding the past is necessary to understand the present and future. I do also strongly like to remind lay people (of which I am one!) that the earth is much different than what it was during the periods that people like to point out as examples to disprove climate change. Different fauna and flora. Different core temperature. ETC. And those differences are MUCH greater than the differences in proven change that climatists are currently worried about and anti-climate change pundits dismiss as insignificant. So attempting to say that you can discount supposedly small changes because they're insignificant, and yet point to major change in the biosphere and claim that is what the world is supposed to be like is disingenious at best.

I did say Thai visa opinions are both ends of the spectrum, one end being wise, the other end you mentioned. For the rest of the comments I didn't say any of that other stuff, at least not recently, so I wasn't disingenuis at all. However I do enjoy seeing the oppostion grow, and the coming end of the ACC hullabaloo.

[brahmburgers]

Overpopulation is caused by global warming?

I don't think anyone stated that. However, overpopulation could be shown to exacerbate global warming.

Whatever dilemmas global warming brings on, will be made worse (for humans, at least) by their exponentially increasing numbers.

Rats, poison oak, ants, pathogens, disease organisms, cockroaches, geckos, stray dogs, stickery bushes and such won't mind, and indeed will likely thrive when people get to covering every square meter of habitable terrain - as is now already happening in some ever-burgeoning cities (HK, Shanghai, Mexico City, Bkk, Calcutta, ....to name a few)

People can procreate 12 months a year. There are fertility clinics than enable US women to pop out 8 kids at a time, the Pope won't allow his flock to use condoms, Filippine catholics erect tar paper shacks on fresh garbage dumps. If we're not already in the handbasket going to hel!, then we're crammed in to the suitcase waiting for the elevator door to open. "Going down?" asks the fertility clinic catholic doctor with his finger on the button. "Yes doc, and quick." the sheep-faced people respond en masse.

[Mosha]

I wouldn't worry too much. We'll be extinct or down to a sensible population level come 2100AD.

[JetsetBkk]

... when people get to covering every square meter of habitable terrain - as is now already happening in some ever-burgeoning cities...

Who cares how full the cities get? There's plenty of land left in the country.

...There are fertility clinics than enable US women to pop out 8 kids at a time...

Yeah, because that has such a great effect on the overall population!!

[Thaddeus]

If you look at ice age patterns you would see we are due for one anyway.

Source for that snippet of info please.

Yep, didn't think I would get one... never do.

[dave_boo]

A few weeks ago, a British guy was working on anti-gravity machine made from old water-aerators from abandoned shrimp farms near Khao Sam Roi Yod. Anyway, he hooked it up, flipped the switch and was flicked by the centrifical force right off the planet. His wife is very worried as he only has 3 days left before he has to report to immigration for his 90-day reporting.

TOO funny

Wow, with pundits like this why do proponents of climate change even retort with facts? It's like trying to convince a Special Olympics participant that he really doesn't snore at night because his scrotum is covering his anus and the gas needs to escape someplace.

I did say Thai visa opinions are both ends of the spectrum, one end being wise, the other end you mentioned. For the rest of the comments I didn't say any of that other stuff, at least not recently, so I wasn't disingenuis at all. However I do enjoy seeing the oppostion grow, and the coming end of the ACC hullabaloo.

I want to point out that I wasn't attacking you personally. I'm glad that opposition is also growing, even if I think that it's wrong. Opposition forces people to defend their notions and explore even more to defend them. This can not be bad if it helps us understand what is actually happen and what we can do to correct it if possible.

[jumnien]

A few weeks ago, a British guy was working on anti-gravity machine made from old water-aerators from abandoned shrimp farms near Khao Sam Roi Yod. Anyway, he hooked it up, flipped the switch and was flicked by the centrifical force right off the planet. His wife is very worried as he only has 3 days left before he has to report to immigration for his 90-day reporting.

TOO funny

Wow, with pundits like this why do proponents of climate change even retort with facts? It's like trying to convince a Special Olympics participant that he really doesn't snore at night because his scrotum is covering his anus and the gas needs to escape someplace.

I did say Thai visa opinions are both ends of the spectrum, one end being wise, the other end you mentioned. For the rest of the comments I didn't say any of that other stuff, at least not recently, so I wasn't disingenuis at all. However I do enjoy seeing the oppostion grow, and the coming end of the ACC hullabaloo.

I want to point out that I wasn't attacking you personally. I'm glad that opposition is also growing, even if I think that it's wrong. Opposition forces people to defend their notions and explore even more to defend them. This can not be bad if it helps us understand what is actually happen and what we can do to correct it if possible.

Excellent post! No matter what level the sea, there will always be a sunny beach! Don't get too serious!

We absolutely insist on enjoying life!

[canuckamuck]

I want to point out that I wasn't attacking you personally. I'm glad that opposition is also growing, even if I think that it's wrong. Opposition forces people to defend their notions and explore even more to defend them. This can not be bad if it helps us understand what is actually happen and what we can do to correct it if possible.

Well I hear ya and agree, but unfortunately this is one of those topics that radicalizes people in such a way that is it is frequently compared to religion. And of course it has the same chemistry. It offers a choice over damnation or salvation, there is evil and good, and there are high priests who have knowledge that the rest of us must simply accept. But I have a feeling that someday a Martin Luther type will nail a list of inconsistencies to the door of this church, and there will be a bit of a reformation in the way Science and industry abuse their power.

It is true is that humans are wrecking a lot of things, oceans, rain forests, the air,and the animals. But what is equally out of balance is that science and media is aimed like a gun towards certain hypothesis which benefit the establishment and gloss over many others which would be costly if pursued. For example. ACC is a tax generator and a vehicle to force the creation of new expensive products, and increased government controls. But there are other issues that are affecting people everyday like brutal regimes in Burma, massive toxic dumping in China, and the problem of world hunger which is not caused by food shortages. The UN, which is so aggresive over the ACC paranoia, is like a wimpering pup over some of these other things.

Because ACC is so hot, it is very difficult to have a discussion with the true believers. We are the infidels, the unregenerate fools who have the devil behind us. But what we are patienlty waiting for is that day when hype runs down and people are allowed to dissent without losing their careers. That will be the day we will see what is true and what will help the most.

[dave_boo]

Well I hear ya and agree, but unfortunately this is one of those topics that radicalizes people in such a way that is it is frequently compared to religion. And of course it has the same chemistry. It offers a choice over damnation or salvation, there is evil and good, and there are high priests who have knowledge that the rest of us must simply accept. But I have a feeling that someday a Martin Luther type will nail a list of inconsistencies to the door of this church, and there will be a bit of a reformation in the way Science and industry abuse their power.

I'm down with someone exposing fraud. And IIRC (wasn't raised Christian so bare with me), that's what Luther was protesting. I have seen no evidence that the fundamental principles of Climate Change are unsound. Are there unscrupulous persons attempting to feed at the funding trough....I'd be surprised if there wasn't. They need to quickly be exposed, preferably by the Climate Change proponents, and dealt with.

It is true is that humans are wrecking a lot of things, oceans, rain forests, the air,and the animals. But what is equally out of balance is that science and media is aimed like a gun towards certain hypothesis which benefit the establishment and gloss over many others which would be costly if pursued. For example. ACC is a tax generator and a vehicle to force the creation of new expensive products, and increased government controls. But there are other issues that are affecting people everyday like brutal regimes in Burma, massive toxic dumping in China, and the problem of world hunger which is not caused by food shortages. The UN, which is so aggresive over the ACC paranoia, is like a wimpering pup over some of these other things.

I personally dislike the UN. It has become ineffective and a tool for nations that can get enough consensus to implement what those said nations want rather than what is needed. Having said that, I'm afraid that focusing on the 'little' things (and it pains me to have to equate the few examples which you brought up with that word) can bring about the loss of the whole. Government control....on the one hand I hate the thought of it; but on the other I believe this is our generation's Manhattan Project. I.E. something so big and vital that only the government can get the ball rolling properly on it. So I'm quite torn in that regard. Also to consider that the extreme cost that would be brought about with the government's involvement pales in expected costs consideration if the predictions are right.

Because ACC is so hot, it is very difficult to have a discussion with the true believers. We are the infidels, the unregenerate fools who have the devil behind us. But what we are patienlty waiting for is that day when hype runs down and people are allowed to dissent without losing their careers. That will be the day we will see what is true and what will help the most.

I'm sorry, I am unaware of anybody that has lost their career due to dissent about either climate change or global warming (I googled both terms with lost career and lose career and lost job and lose job-so pretty thorough..for the first two pages of search on all 8 searches there's a lot of rumours and blog speculations that it could happen). The reason that I get huffy is that there is no theory that can stand on facts that is being posited by the anti-climate change group. Present the world that and prove the rest of the scientific community their error and you'd be set for all history.

Edited March 24, 2009 by dave_boo

[Gary A]

The greenhouse and hydroponic gardeners will save some money if the CO2 levels go up. They have been releasing compressed CO2 in the enclosed greenhouses and their plants do much better. Perhaps this will mean the end of world hunger. Temperature going up means a longer growing season in northern climates.

Sea levels going up? I don't believe that either. Evaporation increases in hotter weather and ice bergs are already mostly underwater. The two poles are VERY small as compared to the surface of the seas.

I have to admit that I am biased because I absolutely don't believe anything Al Gore says.

[brahmburgers]

I wouldn't worry too much. We'll be extinct or down to a sensible population level come 2100AD.

That's one reason I don't shed tears when I hear of calamities going on worldwide - especially man-made problems like war - which impact badly on human populations. that doubly applies to suicide bombers who screw up and take themselves and their buddies out of the equation (happens too infrequently).

Runaway population growth can't go on unchecked forever. It's mathematically impossible on this finite planet. so when we hear about AIDS and other diseases and/or wars, and/or suicide bomb attacks, and/or buses careening over cliffs, and other events which result in human casualties, ......we can lament the human suffering, but there can be a blip of thought given to the inevitable culling or balancing-out that has to happen when a species over-runs the carrying capacity of its environment.

whew, there, thanks for letting me rant. Bob bless T.Visa and T.Visaites.

[brahmburgers]

BB's comments in orange.......

The greenhouse and hydroponic gardeners will save some money if the CO2 levels go up. They have been releasing compressed CO2 in the enclosed greenhouses and their plants do much better. Perhaps this will mean the end of world hunger. Temperature going up means a longer growing season in northern climates.

average temperatures going up may benefit some pockets of land area, but I venture that in the big picture, it will bring bigger deserts, and generally screw with patterns that flora and fauna are used to (and therefore with peoples' well-being). droughts will be more severe and cover wider areas. Floods will increase in severity. Hurricanes will increase in size, as warmer sea water directly affects that.

You may say, 'hey, how can you have more severe droughts and more severe floods in the same areas? That's contradictory.'

I respond: not really. Look at just Thailand. Every year there are floods and there are droughts - often in the same places, though six months apart. It could be argued that the patterns are getting more severe each passing year. If global warming really kicks in, more severe weather swings will certainly take place, not just in Thailand, but in most parts of the world.

Sea levels going up? I don't believe that either. Evaporation increases in hotter weather and ice bergs are already mostly underwater. The two poles are VERY small as compared to the surface of the seas.

There may be increased evaporation, but clouds can only carry a tiny fraction of the water that oceans can carry, so the affect of evaporation will be negligible at most - except for lakes. If half the ice at the poles and Greenland melted, the effects would raise seas worldwide (including Thailand's) several meters.

I have to admit that I am biased because I absolutely don't believe anything Al Gore says.

Do you not believe what Gore says because you don't like the guy, or because his science is faulty? ....or for some other reasons?

Edited March 24, 2009 by brahmburgers

[Gary A]

BB's comments in orange.......

The greenhouse and hydroponic gardeners will save some money if the CO2 levels go up. They have been releasing compressed CO2 in the enclosed greenhouses and their plants do much better. Perhaps this will mean the end of world hunger. Temperature going up means a longer growing season in northern climates.

average temperatures going up may benefit some pockets of land area, but I venture that in the big picture, it will bring bigger deserts, and generally screw with patterns that flora and fauna are used to (and therefore with peoples' well-being). droughts will be more severe and cover wider areas. Floods will increase in severity. Hurricanes will increase in size, as warmer sea water directly affects that.

You may say, 'hey, how can you have more severe droughts and more severe floods in the same areas? That's contradictory.'

I respond: not really. Look at just Thailand. Every year there are floods and there are droughts - often in the same places, though six months apart. It could be argued that the patterns are getting more severe each passing year. If global warming really kicks in, more severe weather swings will certainly take place, not just in Thailand, but in most parts of the world.

Sea levels going up? I don't believe that either. Evaporation increases in hotter weather and ice bergs are already mostly underwater. The two poles are VERY small as compared to the surface of the seas.

There may be increased evaporation, but clouds can only carry a tiny fraction of the water that oceans can carry, so the affect of evaporation will be negligible at most - except for lakes. If half the ice at the poles and Greenland melted, the effects would raise seas worldwide (including Thailand's) several meters.

I have to admit that I am biased because I absolutely don't believe anything Al Gore says.

Do you not believe what Gore says because you don't like the guy, or because his science is faulty? ....or for some other reasons?

I'm saying that I DON'T like the gloom and doom Chicken Little types. I hear all these bullshit predictions that are based on nothing except a good imagination.

I also believe that Al Gore couldn't tie his own shoes without help. The bottom line is that the earth goes through cycles and this is part of a cycle. No one has ever explained to me what caused the last ice age that carved out the Great Lakes in the US.

[Spee]

I'm saying that I DON'T like the gloom and doom Chicken Little types. I hear all these bullshit predictions that are based on nothing except a good imagination.

I hear ya, man!

I also believe that Al Gore couldn't tie his own shoes without help. The bottom line is that the earth goes through cycles and this is part of a cycle. No one has ever explained to me what caused the last ice age that carved out the Great Lakes in the US.

This one will kill ya!

I'm told there are European countries currently trying to pass legislation to tax cattle farmers for bovine flatulation effects on the climate. If I recall correctly, Denmark and Ireland are two of the countries trying to foist this nonsense upon their taxpaying citizenry.

How much more silly is this ridiculousness going to get before people starting waking up and telling their governments enough is enough.

[brahmburgers]

yes, Gary and Spee, there are certainly a lot of ridiculous things going on in the world.

That's not being contended.

It's also easy to say, 'the hel_l with what happens in the world, I've got what I need, and let everyone else get what they need - or suffer the consequences.' or a variation; "it's all bullcrap anyway, so why bother doing anything worthwhile, except what's good for my personally."

Welcome to the Cynics Corner.

On the other hand, there are those who care enough about their kids' and grandkids' generation - to try and do whatever they can, however small it may seem, to help out future generations. I've planted 250 pine trees, and about the same number of fruit and nut trees - most of which may not even come to usefulness and/or fruit in my lifetime.

(Gary A @ 2009-03-24 13:01:25) *

I'm saying that I DON'T like the gloom and doom Chicken Little types. I hear all these bullshit predictions that are based on nothing except a good imagination.

Am not sure what you're trying to say. But it sounds as though you're in a superior position to know what's real and what's not real, and you have zero doubts about your being correct.

Though I may admire your ironclad self-assurance, it's rather divorced from scientific method, where every finding, no matter how certain it appears, is subject to scrutiny.

If you have scientific findings that prove Gore and scores of scientists wrong in their climate models, please show them to us. However, you might check your footing, for earlier you expressed thoughts inferred global warming would cause so much evaporation in the seas, as to offset any rising sea levels.

Not sound science.

I think Gore would be the first to admit he's not a scientist in the strictest sense. He's more of a statesman and a messenger. He doesn't claim to be forever right on all he talks about. He has enough of scientist's bent to be open to contrary findings and/or arguments, and I'm sure he's open enough to listen to other opinions without stooping to name-calling. You don't have to like Gore's personality. It's not a popularity contest. Scarlett Jonanssen is a lot prettier to look at. But if you choose to debate the veracity of coming world warming (on a dire scale) then come along and join the discussion - but try to be mature about it, and leave the name-calling to the schoolyard kids. ....same for the "it's all bullroar, and anyone who disagrees with me is an a-hole' type of mentality. It doesn't further the debate.

Indeed, there appear to be some who won't take any proof at all (of global warming) no matter what evidence comes down the tubes. Even it the Sahara desert expanded by 1,000 sq.Km annually, and all glaciers outside of Antarctica disappeared in five years, the die-hard naysayers wouldn't be convinced.

If I wanted to give vent to my imagination, I could concoct scenarios that would be a lot more dire than global warming. If you've ever read science fiction, you'd know there are a lot more fantastic scenarios than Earth becoming too hot - and ocean levels rising so high as to obliterate half the world's largest cities.

[dave_boo]

I'm saying that I DON'T like the gloom and doom Chicken Little types. I hear all these bullshit predictions that are based on nothing except a good imagination.

I also believe that Al Gore couldn't tie his own shoes without help. The bottom line is that the earth goes through cycles and this is part of a cycle. No one has ever explained to me what caused the last ice age that carved out the Great Lakes in the US.

I can tell you the reason that the last Ice Age was so severe in the United States is because the Ithmus of Panama closed. The lack of exchange of water between the Atlantic and Pacific exacerbated the problem in North America as evidenced by maps that show the advance of the ice sheets worldwide. Also the Bering land bridge formed, stopping the Oyashio Current which is a major player in the circulation of water in the Pacific. It's actually a cooling current for eastern Asia, but as it circulates around it provides warmth to western North America.

But what actually caused it? I wasn't there so I can't tell you. But than again you weren't there so you can't prove it did happen. However, there's several theories that could explain it.

1). A ice free pole(s). This means that a larger amount of the ocean was abosrbing heat and releasing it as percipitation. This precipitation would accumalate on land and increase the reflectivity and decrease the amount of heat absorbed each year. Less heat abosrbed means that less snow/ice melts each year. This will be an exponential increase. The interesting thing about this theory is that if true, humans could have ended the last ice age due to over havesting of the forests, which they would have burned for heat, cooking, etc and released more CO₂ into the air and their switch from being hunter-gatherers to farmers-herders which means that the resulatant population explosion would have increased the demand for items that would have released more greenhouse gases.

2). The desertification of the Sahara. This follows the same theory as the ice free polar caps, but adds in decreased CO₂ scrubbing areas. The ironic thing about that is that as the ice sheets advanced, they increased low pressure areas and brought more rain to the Sahara and 'greened' more it than it had been.

It's important to note that there is currently no one defining theory that can be pointed to as the proper reason for the last ice age. Orbital axis shift is being looked at (and goes along nicely with the ice free poles theory in that once the ice shelfs started forming even more sunlight was reflected into space and decreased the rate of yearly melting) as is solar output. Solar output is tricky because when stars form, they're violent. Extremely violent. Its ability to correctly regulate itself, exacerbated by the mass that it used to have (and has since burned up) led to it hunting, not unlike an old school transmission, for the correct balance. I doubt that is what caused the last ice age, due to how recent it was. It seems plausible for the other much older ones though.

[johnefallis]

Words fail me also, I.. I.. I....-

I'm spraying water from eyes I'm laughing so hard!!!

:jerk:

It must be that gravity doesn't apply to Thailand as it does to Europe! ROFLMAO

I wonder if the journalist got it?

TiT

[TonySoprano]

the guy who predicted the tsunami gave a much more bleaker outlook. maybe hel_l get fired... again.