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

[Pundi64]

Gulf of Thailand won't rise with global warming, expert claims

Apr 23, 2007, 3:03 GMT

Bangkok - Global warming is not likely to cause the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand to rise because the body of water is too far from melting glaciers, a leading Thai hydrologist claimed on Monday.

Recent forecasts by the United Nations' Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict a 40 centimetre rise in sea levels by the end of the century will cause flooding for up to 94 million Asians living in coastal areas, may not apply to the Gulf of Thailand, according to Suphat Vongvisessomjai, a former professor in water resources engineering at Bangkok's Asia Institute of Technology.

'The climate change panel's projection was wrongly accepted to apply to the Gulf of Thailand,' Suphat told The Nation newspaper. 'We are too far from melting glaciers or ice sheets.'

Suphat added that, in fact, recent research shows that the average sea levels along some coastal provinces on the gulf have declined 0.3 to 0.6 centrimetres over the past eight years.

The hydrologist, now an employee of Team Consulting Engineering, called on the public not to panic over the IPCC findings.

'The climate change panel did not deceive us or exaggerate. Its scientific findings are just based on the environment of their scientists, most of whom live in Europe,' he told the English-language daily.

Asia-Pacific news

LaoPo

OH MY GOD!!!! What wee-jee board did he use to get that ridiculous assumption??

[JetsetBkk]

OH MY GOD!!!! What wee-jee board did he use to get that ridiculous assumption??

No wee-jee (sp?) board needed, mate. All that extra water will fall off the edge before it gets to Thailand.

[John K]

By the way, I am noting that the heavens have opened in Bangkok today, and the same forecast is for tomorrow. How often does it rain at this time of the year? No I won't suggest this is a warning from above on the political situation.

[ace]

"Climate change science hard to ignore

By Walt Barnes - Special to The Garden Island

Climate change, sometimes called global warming, is the gradual warming of the planet caused by man’s activities. The Earth’s climate has always been changing, sometimes getting a little hotter, sometimes cooler, but the impact of 6.6 billion industrious human beings is now far outpacing naturally occurring climate cycles. This second article on global warming explains the mechanisms causing climate change.

The principal human activity causing climate change is burning coal and oil, called fossil fuels. As long as coal and oil remain underground they don’t affect the climate, but when burned, they release carbon dioxide, or CO2, an odorless, colorless, non-toxic gas. And they release a lot of it. Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 24 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Burning one pound of coal releases two pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. And like pouring water into a glass, pouring CO2 into the atmosphere causes it to fill up with more and more CO2."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got to highlight that one in favor of my previous "dumb scientists" posts! ..

[apetley]

"Climate change science hard to ignore

By Walt Barnes - Special to The Garden Island

Climate change, sometimes called global warming, is the gradual warming of the planet caused by man’s activities. The Earth’s climate has always been changing, sometimes getting a little hotter, sometimes cooler, but the impact of 6.6 billion industrious human beings is now far outpacing naturally occurring climate cycles. This second article on global warming explains the mechanisms causing climate change.

The principal human activity causing climate change is burning coal and oil, called fossil fuels. As long as coal and oil remain underground they don’t affect the climate, but when burned, they release carbon dioxide, or CO2, an odorless, colorless, non-toxic gas. And they release a lot of it. Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 24 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Burning one pound of coal releases two pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. And like pouring water into a glass, pouring CO2 into the atmosphere causes it to fill up with more and more CO2."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got to highlight that one in favor of my previous "dumb scientists" posts! ..

You obviously never study that hard during science class at college.

A gallon weighs a little over 6 pounds, 85 percent of which is carbon, giving 5.25 pounds of carbon per gallon. Each carbon atom combines with two oxygen atoms from the atmosphere when it burns, adding 14 pounds per gallon, for a total emission of 5.25 + 14 = 19.25 pounds of CO2

[Ricardo]

By the way, I am noting that the heavens have opened in Bangkok today, and the same forecast is for tomorrow. How often does it rain at this time of the year? No I won't suggest this is a warning from above on the political situation.

Could somebody on a flight, say from Hong Kong to Manchester for example, have flushed hard as they passed overhead ?

[VegasVic]

Climate change science hard to ignore

By Walt Barnes - Special to The Garden Island

Climate change, sometimes called global warming, is the gradual warming of the planet caused by man’s activities. The Earth’s climate has always been changing, sometimes getting a little hotter, sometimes cooler, but the impact of 6.6 billion industrious human beings is now far outpacing naturally occurring climate cycles. This second article on global warming explains the mechanisms causing climate change.

The principal human activity causing climate change is burning coal and oil, called fossil fuels. As long as coal and oil remain underground they don’t affect the climate, but when burned, they release carbon dioxide, or CO2, an odorless, colorless, non-toxic gas. And they release a lot of it. Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 24 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Burning one pound of coal releases two pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. And like pouring water into a glass, pouring CO2 into the atmosphere causes it to fill up with more and more CO2.

For the last 400,000 years the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere varied naturally between 200 and 300 PPMV (parts per million by volume). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations started increasing steadily around 200 years ago when we began mining coal and later using oil. As the Earth’s population grew, became more industrialized and rapidly consumed coal and oil, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increased to unprecedented levels. Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years.

What we have only recently realized is that the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 is directly causing the Earth to warm and our planet’s climate to change. Even this seemingly small increase in CO2 is having a profound greenhouse warming effect on climate. As the sun warms the Earth, some heat is absorbed and some is reflected back towards outer space. CO2 in the atmosphere traps reflected heat, and the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped.

The Earth has a delicate heat balance. Its oceans, rivers and valleys formed over tens of thousands of years, much as a result of our stable climate. The places where food grows well are a result of our climate. The places where lakes form to store water are a result of our climate. While natural climate changes occur over 10,000 years and give the planet time to make new rivers and allow fertile areas to gradually shift across the globe, man-made climate change occurs 100 to 1,000 times more rapidly. Dr. Peter B. deMenocal, of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said, “It’s not this abstract notion that happens over millions of years. The magnitude of what we’re talking about greatly, greatly exceeds anything we’ve withstood in human history.”

Some fertile areas will suffer drought and quickly become unproductive. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates 232,000 square miles of cultivatable farm land in Africa alone will be ruined by inevitable climate change already in progress as a result of the current atmospheric CO2.

What can we expect on Kaua‘i? Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict that “warming and other climate changes may expand the habitat and infectivity of disease-carrying insects (into Hawai‘i), increasing the potential for transmission of diseases such as malaria and dengue (break bone) fever.” Certainly Kaua‘i can expect a big impact from rising sea level. Every refinement of research brings more accurate predications of the coming global sea level rise. The panel’s research confirms the CO2 already in the atmosphere commits us to a minimum 4.6-foot rise in sea level. With development and infrastructure in Kaua‘i located predominately in low coastal areas we will be especially impacted. The sea level rise which scientists now consider inevitable within our lifetimes will put Nawiliwili and Port Allen harbors underwater along with many stretches of coastal road. The fight now is to reduce global warming so we limit climate change to prevent the 20-foot to 40-foot sea level rise that will happen without quick global action to reduce CO2 emissions. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, underscored the urgency in an interview with the Washington Post, “It’s not something you can adapt to. We can’t let it go on another 10 years like this. We’ve got to do something.” He explained that the changes we will experience if we don’t take quick action “imply changes that constitute practically a different planet.”

Beyond global warming from atmospheric CO2, climate scientists are very concerned about climate tipping points. These tipping points occur when the Earth warms enough to jump start natural processes that cause increasing, runaway warming. “When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it’s unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply,” said Dr. David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. Scientists are especially concerned about three tipping points, deep ocean gas hydrates, melting glaciers, and changing ocean currents.

Dr. Gerald Dickens of Rice University notes that the cold, deep ocean contains more than 10 times as much carbon as the atmosphere, trapped in frozen gas hydrates. These gas hydrates are sensitive to relatively small changes in deep-ocean temperature. Scientists believe four times in the distant past, 250, 183, 120, and 55 million years ago gradual warming of the planet caused the ocean to warm enough to release these gas hydrates into the atmosphere resulting in abrupt, runaway climate change.

Glaciers, especially in Greenland and Antarctica, represent a stabilizing influence on the climate, much like ice cubes keep a drink cold. Glaciers typically move very slowly towards the sea, their total size remaining approximately constant because as they drop huge ice burgs into the sea, snow fills in gradually becoming hard packed ice. But scientists have recently recorded glaciers accelerating their move to the sea. Researchers Dr. Pannir Kanagaratnam, at the University of Kansas Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets, and Dr. Eric Rignot of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., report that Greenland’s 21 largest glaciers accelerated 28 percent between 1996 and 2000 and 57 percent between 1996 and 2005. They report the flow acceleration is widespread and systematic. Dr. Duncan Wingham, professor of climate physics at University College London, tracks Antarctic ice and reports its loss has picked up speed in recent years. As ice trapped in glaciers decreases on a global scale, scientists fear even more warming might occur. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey estimate that if all the ice sitting on land in Greenland and Antarctica melted it would cause global sea levels to rise by 215 feet, but no climate change models currently predict such a catastrophe.

The effect of global warming on ocean currents is a third potential runaway climate change. Ocean and climate models developed by Dr. Uwe Mikolajewicz, at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, Germany, predict even moderate global warming could cause ocean effects that might lead to runaway warming. His model predicts warmer surface water at high latitudes will reduce the upwelling of dense, salty water from the deep ocean. This, in turn, reduces the total amount of CO2 the ocean can hold resulting in even higher greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The last 20 years of North Atlantic Ocean temperature measurements match the results predicted by these models.

Global warming and serious, inevitable consequences are an established fact. There is still time to avoid tragic consequences if we all act immediately. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” said Rajendra Pachauri, the scientist who heads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

The third article in this series appearing next month will outline the scope of global solutions needed to combat climate change.

Why trash and meat matter

CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas. Methane, or CH4, is a greenhouse gas, pound for pound 20 times more powerful than CO2. Methane is the sour smell we associate with decomposing waste. Small landfills, like Kaua‘i’s, which don’t trap methane released by decomposing organic garbage, are a major source of methane. Kaua‘i’s Kekaha landfill releases methane causing global warming equivalent to 250 million vehicle miles annually, making it one of Kaua‘i’s largest contributions to climate change.

Anyone with a normal sense of smell who has lived near a farm or industrial feedlot knows animal wastes are a significant source of methane. Manure also releases nitrous oxide, or N2O, a greenhouse gas 296 times more potent than CO2. Global consumption of meat is increasing rapidly, worsening climate change. In 1962 the world’s 3.1 billion people consumed 48 pounds of meat per person, a total of 68 million metric tons. In 2002 the Earth’s 6.2 million people consumed 88 pounds per person, or 247 million metric tons of meat, 3.6 times more than in 1962. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization reports the global livestock sector generates 18 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire global transportation sector, including cars, trucks, and airplanes.

One immediate thing you can do to combat global warming is to be sure organic waste like food waste and green waste don’t get in trash heading to the Kekaha landfill. The second thing we can all do is eat less meat. While giving up meat, dairy, and eggs would reduce 50 percent more greenhouse gas than trading your SUV for a hybrid car, most of us are not ready to go completely vegan, so do what you can to cut back on the meat you eat.

Are we really sure?

Historic scientific caution has created confusion about the certainty of man-made global warming. Ten years ago when widespread research into global warming was beginning, scientists could only report their data suggested the Earth was warming and human activities might be contributing. Five years ago research was well underway but still incomplete, so scientists could only say they believed human activity was a likely cause of global warming. Today, scientists have completed enough research for the final report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine that man-made global warming is “unequivocal.” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon summarized the scientific certainty at this weeks release of third panel report. “The world’s scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice,” he said.

But even though the latest data and the most thorough analysis supported almost unanimously within the scientific community has concluded that man-made global warming is a fact, plenty of 5-year-old and 10-year-old reports which say more study is needed are still circulating. NASA climatologist Dr. Gavin Schmidt explained the undeniable case for global warming this way to the BBC a few weeks ago: Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show the results of global warming.

Determined skeptics of climate change would do well to consider the advice the Australian Psychology Society, “Sometimes, if the information is too unsettling, and the solutions seem too difficult, people can cope by minimizing or denying that there is a problem, or avoiding thinking about the problems. The caution expressed by climate change skeptics could be a form of denial, where it involves minimizing the weight of scientific evidence/consensus on the subject.”

Source: http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2007/11...news/news07.txt

It is a bit like the Titanic at this point if we are already committed to 4.6 feet (1.4 meters) sea level rise based on the damage we have already done.

I am amazed that this thread is still alive, not that global warming isn't a critical problem, but the silly premise of the OP that if the worlds oceans were to rise substantially that it would have very little effect on the gulf of Thailand. Perhaps if the worlds oceans rise by 2 meters then Thailands gulf would only rise by 1.97 meters, but to think that the thai gulf exists in some sort of never never land that is uneffeted by the rising levels of the worlds oceans is way beyond foolish. Your point about methane is right on the mark, however you missed one of the main (if not the main) producers of methane that is released into the atmosphere, that is the worlds oceans. The problem is growing in a self stroking cycle as the arctic ice is melted and then releases methane that has been trapped underneath for millenia. While man has certainly contributed to global warming, it is nature, combined with natural cycles that are to blame for the most part and it is incredibly arrogant for man to think that he can reverse this inertia on his own. Its kind of like the saying that we can do something about the major sunspot cycle that will be upon us in the next 4-5 years (hitting its peak on the winter solstis in 2012, oddly enough the date that the Mayan calendar ends). I guess we feel that we are the masters of this planet because of our advanced scientific knowledge, when of course just the opposite is true, we are merely the current inhabitants and on a linear chronology of earth we are just a speck in the history of this planet. Don't get me wrong I'm all for cleaning up the air we breathe and the water we drink, but I think that the green extreme that exploits this issue assigns the majority of blame on man and really misses what is going on here on a macro basis.

[jbowman1993]

Not sure how it will all play out, but I'm buying a house on a mountain top, just in case!

[nomoretalksin]

Little update here (will keep you postet in the next view months, as this should be in the interested of all of us)

I couldn't find any other proper thread within TV, so guess here is the right place to announce some scientific proof, of

our manmade global warming. Hope the Thai Government is not sleeping this one out in the near future.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7417123.stm

Vast cracks appear in Arctic ice

By David Shukman

Environment correspondent, BBC News

A Canadian expedition found the new cracks

Dramatic evidence of the break-up of the Arctic ice-cap has emerged from research during an expedition by the Canadian military.

Scientists travelling with the troops found major new fractures during an assessment of the state of giant ice shelves in Canada's far north.

The team found a network of cracks that stretched for more than 10 miles (16km) on Ward Hunt, the area's largest shelf.

The fate of the vast ice blocks is seen as a key indicator of climate change.

Satellite image of Ward Hunt Ice Shelf cracks

Enlarge Image

One of the expedition's scientists, Derek Mueller of Trent University, Ontario, told me: "I was astonished to see these new cracks. "It means the ice shelf is disintegrating, the pieces are pinned together like a jigsaw but could float away," Dr Mueller explained.

According to another scientist on the expedition, Dr Luke Copland of the University of Ottawa, the new cracks fit into a pattern of change in the Arctic.

"We're seeing very dramatic changes; from the retreat of the glaciers, to the melting of the sea ice.

"We had 23% less (sea ice) last year than we've ever had, and what's happening to the ice shelves is part of that picture."

When ice shelves break apart, they drift offshore into the ocean as "ice islands", transforming the very geography of the coastline.

read more - click above link

Anyone didn't seen yet Al Gore's "Unconvenient Truth"? Brilliant documentary and wake-up call. But are our politicians listening & studying this problem?

Take Thaksin during 6 years ruling, I think not once sentence, came out his mouth, on this subject... rather amending laws to make tax free deals etc.

I hope the politicians will wake up sooner rather than to late.

[nomoretalksin]

double-entry by mistake - entry deleted

Sorry also for my English. It's not the best I know. I will study more in the future

and try to improve.

Nice day chaps!

Edited May 24, 2008 by nomoretalksin

[nomoretalksin]

Tidal Cycle Could Amplify Global-warming Related Sea-level Rises

ScienceDaily (May 24, 2008)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80522084943.htm

Quote

The results of several scientific studies conducted since 1993 have confirmed a 3.2 cm sea level rise. Although this variation might appear negligible, it has in fact turned out to be twice as high as that recorded over the whole of the previous century. This increase in sea level is a consequence of global warming. When sea temperature rises, the sea expands and therefore occupies a greater volume.

continue here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80522084943.htm

Unquote

Would you guys invest in any property etc. near the sea in the South of Thailand?

[Samuian]

So, and what are all those really concerned with all this armageddon?

All living in a Cave, without electricity, without PC, without, without, without, without, without, ..... Oh' you can't, because...

Keep on stirring the horror soup... I'll have walk on the beach and check if there is a detectable rise...

And yep, it's warm, pretty warm, that is why I am here, back home it's 5-6 months of the year much to cold...

[nomoretalksin]

I must assume the poster above, mixes up his own current situation, with the situation of our future generations, which is what I assume the discussion and collection of scientific information is about.

Good source/reading also here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Sea-level rise is an increase in sea level. Multiple complex factors may influence this change.

Sea-level has risen about 130 metres (400 ft) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1993 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1 [2]. Church and White (2006) found a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ±0.3 mm per yr and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year. If this acceleration remains constant, then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm. Sea-level rise can be a product of global warming through two main processes: thermal expansion of sea water and widespread melting of land ice

continue to read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Questions remains open:

would you if you had children, invest in property near the sea (anywhere) or in our case in the south of Thailand?

[plachon]

I must assume the poster above, mixes up his own current situation, with the situation of our future generations, which is what I assume the discussion and collection of scientific information is about.

Good source/reading also here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Sea-level rise is an increase in sea level. Multiple complex factors may influence this change.

Sea-level has risen about 130 metres (400 ft) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1993 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1 [2]. Church and White (2006) found a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ±0.3 mm per yr and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year. If this acceleration remains constant, then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm. Sea-level rise can be a product of global warming through two main processes: thermal expansion of sea water and widespread melting of land ice

continue to read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Questions remains open:

would you if you had children, invest in property near the sea (anywhere) or in our case in the south of Thailand?

Firstly, thanks for digging up this old thread and resurrecting it, given the important new findings from the break up of the Canadian Arctic ice sheet you highlight - another signal of the coming changes and dangers this planet is facing, thanks to AGW.

However, I am a little puzzled why you ask the question above about whether people here would invest in property near the sea "in the south of Thailand". I assume by this you mean by "the sea in Thailand" and don't actually think that the southern provinces of Thailand will experience worse sea level rises than any other coastal provinces of Thailand, like the subject of the OP thought Thailand would be immune from sea level rise because of its relative distance from the poles!? Actually, it maybe relatively safer in the south becuause of the prevalence of rocky and raised land next to the sea, as opposed to the upper Gulf of Thailand, which is low lying deltaic land which will be the first to go under as sea levels rise. In fact large areas of the Samut's are already starting to be claimed by the sea, and this trend will continue, so long as the sea continues to rise and the govt does not devote more resources to coastal protection. However, the latter option is not a panacea, as indicated by many state "coastal protection projects", which have halted or slowed down the natural coastal protection processes of movement of sand and gravels, causing greater erosion a bit further along the coast.

So, this is the other issue with sea level rise, irrespective of cause - unless the "solution" is well planned and executed, it could cause more problems than it solves and more of Thailand's coastline will disappear in to the oceans - whatever coastal province you live in. Then there are the dams which have blocked the flow of sediments into the sea, further exacerbating an existing and growing problem. All this to consider and more before you decide to invest in coastal, low-lying property wherever in the world................................

By the way, your English is fine Nomore.........keep on posting new links you find and views you want to express........

[himachal]

A 'leading hydrologist' ?????

The scary thing is where he's leading us!!!

[nomoretalksin]

Thanks for your correction (your right, of course all coastal areas and also land nearby, rivers up-downstreams etc. will be affected) and your insights, specifically regarding wonderful Thailand, which are interesting to read. Also the geological facts, also under-water, which you nicely outline.

The reason why I digged it up, because I want (and I hope also others) want to learn more about this subject(s); such as:

Rising Seal Levels, Changing Weather patterns, our politicians what they do to educate and guide the population on this matter, why we still don't invest

more money in alternate energies, current crazy rising oil prices, rising numbers of cyclones, hurricanes etc. etc. etc. I guess all this is in some way interconnected and can't be just ignored by sitting on Ko Samui, and saying it's not my problem! etc.

By the way the global warming may not only cause rising sea levels, but actually and maybe even more dangerous for us in the near future,

would be the abnormal "changing weather patterns", including change of the Gulf Strom etc., which also can cause Global freezing (not only warming) e.g. in Europe in the future (if the gulf strom changes dramatically) and/or many other changes you can find all over the world.

See also the unusual weather pattern, we have now currently in Thailand in 2007 and 2008, with strong rain-falls already in April/May/June !?

Also I wonder what our friend above on Ko Samui would say if a cyclone like in Burma, would hit his area in the near future.

Would he still place non-constructiv comments on forums regarding this for us all so important matter, which we definitely

have to study more and take actions where possible and needed!?

We all should inform ourselves and never stop learning, how we can maintain our unique earth & environment, which we only have one.

If there is a better thread for this matter, within TV, please let me know. I will read more online about this matter and post it, here on TV.

Any contributions regarding this matters, such as above are welcomed.

[Galong]

I assume by this you mean by "the sea in Thailand" and don't actually think that the southern provinces of Thailand will experience worse sea level rises than any other coastal provinces of Thailand, like the subject of the OP thought Thailand would be immune from sea level rise because of its relative distance from the poles!?

Well, if'n ya look at a map, that thar water'd have ta flow UP to reach us. :D

Thanks for firing this thread back up. I couldn't find it on my own for some reason.

[brahmburgers]

<snip>

I don't like to see bad science. It's so prevalent these days, I really sometimes think people are getting dumber....

Ace

I don't think people are getting dumber so much as the "scientists" are getting smarter - there's money to be made in future disasters. They won't get any funding if all they say is "Everything's OK, it'll all get better in 20 years, it's cyclical, nothing to worry about, move along please."

About 7 years ago there was an article in the Bangkok Post saying something to the effect: 'Thai energy experts are open to studying solar energy devices and their practicality for Thailand, but they first have to study how much sun Thailand gets. as it's assumed Thailand gets too much sunshine for current technology to be effective.'

I'm sorry, I wish I had the specific wording, but the gist of the article left me aghast, in that it inferred that (in the scientists' view) because Thailand rec's a high amount of sunshine, that more studies needed to be done to gauge whether solar technology was a plausible here. Thai science is not world renown as being stellar.

The reality is: Thailand gets only a moderate amount of solar annually, far less than SW US or most parts of Australia, or the Arabian peninsula for example. Much has to do with haze and smog most of the year - over the entire country.

As for scientists going for headline-grabbing 'science news' -I agree with that. Every so often, there's a scientific article that blames some widespread issue on some oddball genes that may have been inherited: some examples: alcoholism and/or being homosexual. Some unscrupulous scientists know that [A] such things can't be proven or disproven 100%, but the publicity garnered from publishing such nebulous 'scientific studies' is great for publicity, and selling books, and getting on talk shows, etc.

Edited May 24, 2008 by brahmburgers

[ThaiAdventure]

Global warming ...certainly.

Result of massive carbon dioxide and methane emissions? Fire and brimstone cataclysmic end of the world stuff? I'm still to be convinced.

This graph shows long term climate trends and what is intriguing is that (apart from now) the CO2 has always lagged the temperature change in the past. Is it a cause or an effect (warmer climate=more f*rting cows etc)?

what I do see from it it (in my limited understanding of the science) is that it's been pretty consistent over the last 8000 odd years and we are currently not outside the last 8000 years variances (temperature wise). Also there is a lot of evidence (re a recent tv documentary by Baldrick A.K.A tony robinson) that the English Channel (the puddle between Britain and France) used to be a plain with the prehistoric equivelent lions, elephants and flora and fauna usually associated with equitorial regions....even evidence of dwellngs! So there must have been a lot LESS water around at some point and (sticking my neck out) probably a lot more too.

I think there is one point that we can all totally agree on though. If a leading Thai scientist really thinks that Thailand is immune from sea level rises (or falls) then Thailand has bigger problems than global warming to worry about.

I still think its another excuse to tax people more

Edited May 24, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[Galong]

For those fans of conspiracy theories (the sky is falling) or those who think the global warming warnings are a scam designed to make money flow into the pockets of certain 'green' companies or "unscrupulous scientists", check out this

.

It's too much of a gamble in my opinion. It only makes sense that the abnormal amount of greenhouse gases that humans are steadily pumping into the atmosphere is going to have side effects.

Yes, throughout history the earth's temperature has gone up and it's gone down. That's a scientific fact. However, that fact has little or no bearing on the current scenario whereby we (humans) are making radical changes to the earth's terrain (clear-cutting jungles), modifying chemical balances and in all likelihood affecting other natural forces by our greed, apathy, carelessness and ignorance.

We should all be working on risk management instead of bickering about who might be making money from their 'theories'.

As brahmburgers says, some scientists might be doing this "for publicity, and selling books, and getting on talk shows, etc." But, what if they're doing it because they believe it's true?

Anyway, I'm rambling. Disprove the video's theory and disprove the belief that the climate is already changing, please.

Peace...

[Galong]

Global warming ...certainly.

Result of massive carbon dioxide and methane emissions? Fire and brimstone cataclysmic end of the world stuff? I'm still to be convinced.

what I do see from it it (in my limited understanding of the science) is that it's been pretty consistent over the last 8000 odd years and we are currently not outside the last 8000 years variances (temperature wise). Also there is a lot of evidence (re a recent tv documentary by Baldrick A.K.A tony robinson) that the English Channel (the puddle between Britain and France) used to be a plain with the prehistoric equivelent lions, elephants and flora and fauna usually associated with equitorial regions....even evidence of dwellngs! So there must have been a lot LESS water around at some point and (sticking my neck out) probably a lot more too.

What do you do when the past is no longer a guide to the future?

Since the industrial revolution we've been pumping chemicals in un-natural amounts into the atmosphere. Do you really think that there are NO side effects from this? Perhaps it's just now starting to take its toll.

There's a domino effect once things really start happening. The rise in water level will create radical food shortages. Much of the rice grown across all of Asia is grown in floodplains and deltas. Take this region out of the equation and what's going to happen? Increasing rice prices? More political unrest? Fights over food and riots over food prices? Starvation of the poor?

The current length and consistency of the coastal regions is needed to keep many species of fish and other marinelife healthy and prosperous (being able to sustain their population). Do you think that they'll adapt right away to the new shoreline and other associated changes? What about the salinity levels in the ocean once the freshwater of the polar ice caps are released into the sea? I see complication piled upon complication.

Are you expecting scientists to figure out all of the intricacies of Nature in order to keep the environment fit for human habitation? I see not reacting right now to the seemingly obvious threat that global warming is revealing to us as too much of a gamble.

Thanks...

Edited May 24, 2008 by Galong

[nomoretalksin]

Global warming ...certainly.

Result of massive carbon dioxide and methane emissions? Fire and brimstone cataclysmic end of the world stuff? I'm still to be convinced.

This graph shows long term climate trends and what is intriguing is that (apart from now) the CO2 has always lagged the temperature change in the past. Is it a cause or an effect (warmer climate=more f*rting cows etc)?

what I do see from it it (in my limited understanding of the science) is that it's been pretty consistent over the last 8000 odd years and we are currently not outside the last 8000 years variances (temperature wise). Also there is a lot of evidence (re a recent tv documentary by Baldrick A.K.A tony robinson) that the English Channel (the puddle between Britain and France) used to be a plain with the prehistoric equivelent lions, elephants and flora and fauna usually associated with equitorial regions....even evidence of dwellngs! So there must have been a lot LESS water around at some point and (sticking my neck out) probably a lot more too.

I think there is one point that we can all totally agree on though. If a leading Thai scientist really thinks that Thailand is immune from sea level rises (or falls) then Thailand has bigger problems than global warming to worry about.

I still think its another excuse to tax people more

tks for that particular graphic. I'm not sure if I quite understand you correctly (sorry i'm not nativ English). Isn't exactly this graphic showing us, that only since a view years the CO2 output (compared to temparature) is totally abnormal skyrocketing? Am I or you missing something here? tks for your explanation. Tks for update from Galong also, nice reading, I will defintely watch that video this weekend, sometime. By the way if you haven't seen Al Gore's "unconvenient truth" yet, there are also some good stats there. Guess try to google up some more stuff next week (for this thread). Nice eve

[ThaiAdventure]

Yup.

Pay money now, and the world will be a nice place! Kind of similar to repent now and enter the kingdom of heaven

tks for that particular graphic. I'm not sure if I quite understand you correctly (sorry i'm not nativ English). Isn't exactly this graphic showing us, that only since a view years the CO2 output (compared to temparature) is totally abnormal skyrocketing?

Yes it does. But my point is that maybe...just maybe CO2 isn't CAUSING global warming , but in fact increases as a consequence of warming (amongst other factors) and is part of a natural cycle.

this makes an interesting read!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html">less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

[Galong]

1. Pay money now, and the world will be a nice place! Kind of similar to repent now and enter the kingdom of heaven

2. CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

1. There seem to be a lot of people worried that certain 'greenie' scientist make money from their position. Well, ALL scientists make money... both sides are profiting from the debate. Both sides are getting grants. Do you expect them to work for free?

The BIG question is what if the greenies are right? Did you look at this

It might be a gamble, but the risk vs reward is illustrated in this simple graph.

2. Um, true... BUT, we're in the process of stripping the earth of plant life, so we're taking a LOT of the potential CO2 reclaimers out of the system. The ocean can't increase it's capacity to convert CO2, that is, unless something is done to improve that aspect of the ocean's capacity to deal with the increases. The feedback loops are enormously complicated. We're opening the doors of the "retirement home" and once the old folks are out, it might be difficult to reel them them back in.

Thanks to all for keeping this debate civil.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Galong

[Canadianvisitor]

But those glasses of beer are full to the brim and those other ones aren't because they are a lot further from the tap at the bar.

And my daughter just got her permission to sell real estate in the Gulf of Thailand.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Canadianvisitor

[Canadianvisitor]

Just for your information:

If you really are thinking that global warming is still up to debate you are horribly misinformed.

If you think that the World is just going to get warmer and the oceans are going to rise you are going to be in for quite a shock.

There are millions and millions of tons of methane gas trapped in the peat of the permafrost of the arctic that are NOT figured into any of the global warming models, this will have a tremendous effect on the reactions that contribute to the catastrophic changes that await our fine little planet.

The people who are screaming out loud to do something about it are not the "greenies" they are the planets scientific community, you know the type that study this for a living.

Those who are trying to say it is just an illusion are paid by those who stand to loose a tremendous amount of money.

Al Gore did not win a Nobel Peace Prize on a hunch.

Further, as a person who is in that scientific community I speak of, the effects of global warming are happening at a much quicker rate that anyone has predicted.

The weather will change dramatically over the next ten years. Our planetary weather is governed by the temperature of the oceans and recent changes in weather patterns over the past fifteen years are a start, not an end.

Have a nice day, drink some good beer, enjoy yourself, because I for one really do not believe there will be much done about it in time to reverse the effects of the greenhouse impact.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Canadianvisitor

[Galong]

Good posting and many fine points CanadianVisitor... oh, and good luck on selling property in Atlantis.

A lot of the scientists are saying that it is probably too late to do anything that'll make a drastic change. We've gone too far already and thanks the attitude of many, we can't even agree that there's a problem!

All we can really do now is damage control. I don't think it's too late, but the clock is ticking.

[Canadianvisitor]

Global warming ...certainly.

Result of massive carbon dioxide and methane emissions? Fire and brimstone cataclysmic end of the world stuff? I'm still to be convinced.

This graph shows long term climate trends and what is intriguing is that (apart from now) the CO2 has always lagged the temperature change in the past. Is it a cause or an effect (warmer climate=more f*rting cows etc)?

what I do see from it it (in my limited understanding of the science) is that it's been pretty consistent over the last 8000 odd years and we are currently not outside the last 8000 years variances (temperature wise). Also there is a lot of evidence (re a recent tv documentary by Baldrick A.K.A tony robinson) that the English Channel (the puddle between Britain and France) used to be a plain with the prehistoric equivelent lions, elephants and flora and fauna usually associated with equitorial regions....even evidence of dwellngs! So there must have been a lot LESS water around at some point and (sticking my neck out) probably a lot more too.

I think there is one point that we can all totally agree on though. If a leading Thai scientist really thinks that Thailand is immune from sea level rises (or falls) then Thailand has bigger problems than global warming to worry about.

I still think its another excuse to tax people more

tks for that particular graphic. I'm not sure if I quite understand you correctly (sorry i'm not nativ English). Isn't exactly this graphic showing us, that only since a view years the CO2 output (compared to temparature) is totally abnormal skyrocketing? Am I or you missing something here? tks for your explanation. Tks for update from Galong also, nice reading, I will defintely watch that video this weekend, sometime. By the way if you haven't seen Al Gore's "unconvenient truth" yet, there are also some good stats there. Guess try to google up some more stuff next week (for this thread). Nice eve

That particular graph is from Al Gore's movie that contributed to the awarding him a Nobel Peace Prize. It is a prediction (and pretty realistic) of the output of CO2 in the coming future. One might also search on youtube under the name of "David Suzuki".

[himachal]

Yup.

Pay money now, and the world will be a nice place! Kind of similar to repent now and enter the kingdom of heaven

tks for that particular graphic. I'm not sure if I quite understand you correctly (sorry i'm not nativ English). Isn't exactly this graphic showing us, that only since a view years the CO2 output (compared to temparature) is totally abnormal skyrocketing?

Yes it does. But my point is that maybe...just maybe CO2 isn't CAUSING global warming , but in fact increases as a consequence of warming (amongst other factors) and is part of a natural cycle.

this makes an interesting read!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html">less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

Dear TA

Thanks for your fun facts about CO2.

A few points come to mind:

1. Anthropogenic (manmade) contributions to atmospheric CO2 represent approx. 3% increase (according to your figures) in what is just a brief moment in geological time. Given time, natural systems usually adjust to changes in inputs, but this is like taking up smoking at 2 packs a day.

2. As you say, CO2 makes up a small proportion of all atmospheric gases by volume, but it is a significant greenhouse gas. I like a little bit of salt on my chips - not much - but the chips taste so much better!

3. CO2 is food for plants, but poisonous to animals. Ever spent time in a poorly ventilated and crowded room?

4. Naturally, atmospheric CO2 is returned to the land and oceans in that stage of the carbon cycle. But now the land and oceans are being asked to absorb 3% more. Natural absorbtion of atmospheric CO2 by land and ocean surfaces is a chemical process. That means that the maximum possible amount is already being absorbed naturally. So unless more carbon 'sinks' are created, the manmade CO2 remains in the atmosphere.

Furthermore, as Canadianvisitor pointed out, there is a whole load (far more than we have ever released to the atmosphere) of methane, and CO2, currently locked in permafrost. It's a timebomb.

Is it too late to take action? Optimists: have another beer. Pessimists: have another beer!

But please, let's stop being in denial.

BTW, TA. I LOVE your avatar. Should be prizes for these!

[plachon]

Just for your information:

If you really are thinking that global warming is still up to debate you are horribly misinformed.

If you think that the World is just going to get warmer and the oceans are going to rise you are going to be in for quite a shock.

You mean they are not? What will happen then?

There are millions and millions of tons of methane gas trapped in the peat of the permafrost of the arctic that are NOT figured into any of the global warming models, this will have a tremendous effect on the reactions that contribute to the catastrophic changes that await our fine little planet.

Incorrect - the potential impacts of +ve feedback loops including permafrost melt and albedo affect have been considered by climate scientists stretching back 30 years or more and are in models. Just read some stuff by James Lovelock about what was understood back in the 70's and 80's.

The people who are screaming out loud to do something about it are not the "greenies" they are the planets scientific community, you know the type that study this for a living.

Incorrect - it is still the "greenies" who are screaming out loud to do something about it. However, their long-time position has now been strengthened and verified by the majority of the world's rational scientific community who have now analysed the data that was previously largely hypothetical. The scientists now are murmuring concern at the many international conferences and David King, chief UK govt scientific advisor told Tony B. liar that climate change was far more serious than any threat that could be posed by terrorism and it was time the govt woke up to this reality and changed its priorities over resource allocation. The labour govt has semi-woken up now, most of the rest of Europe is quite awake now on climate change threats, but the US is in a deep slumber under the leadership of GWB and allows much of the rest of the world to drift on paralysis and denial (unless they happen to be island states like Maldives who are wide awake). Basically, if the scientists don't shout at the politicians like the "greenies" do, then frankly it will need a few more Hurricane Katrina's on their doorsteps to wake up the people who make policy and plan our economic futures. Luckily, there is evidence that the insurance industry has now woken up, but again, they are not SHOUTING!!!!!!!

Those who are trying to say it is just an illusion are paid by those who stand to loose a tremendous amount of money.

Al Gore did not win a Nobel Peace Prize on a hunch.

Further, as a person who is in that scientific community I speak of, the effects of global warming are happening at a much quicker rate that anyone has predicted.

Anyone? Do you have evidence the rest of us don't know about?? I thought scientists make hypotheses and then they are tested against available data? Therefore, if it is happening faster that anyone has predicted, you must be a real whizzkid with data the world deserves to see.

The weather will change dramatically over the next ten years. Our planetary weather is governed by the temperature of the oceans and recent changes in weather patterns over the past fifteen years are a start, not an end.

Have a nice day, drink some good beer, enjoy yourself, because I for one really do not believe there will be much done about it in time to reverse the effects of the greenhouse impact.

Just a few points of correction are in order I feel. In red above. Some may seem pedantic, but as a self-proclaimed "scientist", you should know the importance of accuracy and being able to back up claims. It is still the green lobby who are leading the way on public awareness campaigns over climate change, as scientists have tended to be either be too scared for their jobs to come out in public or are working for the oil/arms industry and prefer money to "truth". However, that "truism" is now starting to change and scientists are starting to come out their labs and make a bit of noise, but it's still clearly not loud enough! Evidence: the number of people on TV who still deny the patently obvious.