Jump to content

How dumb are Thais?


thalenoi

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I hate to contradict. The water level is rising when you put the ice cube into the water, that is correct, sir it will have to displace enough water to support its weight. The formula is Volume = m/d (m=mass/d=density) The density of water stays the same and the ice cube has the same mass in frozen state as in liquid state. The water level stays the same

 

Ice Shelfs at the Antarctica are fresh water the sea water is salt water this experiment doesn't apply because of the different density, the problem is that the ice shelfs detach from the grounding ice and displace enough water to support their weight... this is rising the sea levels!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the frozen ice masses at the poles. They are above the water line. When that ice melts, the water line will rise.

Rethink what I wrote. Put some liquid in a glass (about 1/4 full). This represents the oceans. Fill the glass with ice. The ice in the glass will rise the water in the glass to a new level. This would be the oceans as they are now. But as the ice melts that is above sea level, the water level will rise. This is because some of the ice at the poles are way above sea level. That ice above sea level, when melted, will rise the oceans. The ice at or below sea level with have virtually no effect on the sea level.

The question should be how much ice is above sea level and if it should melt, how much will it rise the oceans?

Another factor to consider is if the poles become warmer, the air should be able to hold more water (vapor). So how much more water will be displaced into the air? And this displacement will reduce the rise in water, but by how much?

More water in the air means it probably will rain more on the land masses. Land masses can absorb a certain amount of the rain. So how much of the rain will be absorbed in the land masses? This would have to be taken into consideration.

 

What I have seen is a lot of talk but no figures to back up anything. Sounds like a magician playing another hat trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boys it's all explained very well & very simple here how the sea levels have changed & will change & why:

http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/puscience/index.html#14

Read item '5' above for the 200year perspective ;)

 

"14. How much does sea level rise if all the world's ice melts?

To a first approximation, if all the floating sea ice in the world melted, there would be no change in sea level at all, as the floating ice will have displaced its own weight of water. However, if land ice melts, that will raise sea level. All the world's glaciers and small ice caps contain approximately 0.5 m of sea level equivalent between them, while the great Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contain approximately 7 and 61 m respectively. Consequently, if all the wolrd's ice melted in a very much warmer world, sea level would be approximately 70 m higher.

 

However, when land ice melts the distribution of the mass of water around the global ocean is by no means uniform. A large melting would result in a modification in the Earth's gravity field which would result in the sea level change being higher in some places than in others."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BT,

 

Also don't forget to add in Greenland, which has a huge ice mass above the water line, and is melting much faster than scientists predicted a while back. Also, from what I have read recently, the big problem besides the rise in sea levels is the fact that once the ice sheets have melted (and they say soon the summer artic seas will be ice free for part of the year at least) this ice that was once reflecting sunlight/heat back into the atmosphere will no longer be protecting the seas and land that it covered from heating up, which will further the melting on the land ice. So, this speeds up the melting of the land ice masses, which further raises sea levels, and also raises the temperatures, as the ice is no longer there to reflect the suns rays. Whether this is all or even mostly due to humananity is still up for debate by some. The earth has had some min-ice ages and also mini ice meltings over the ages (one melting was around the time of the Viking landings in the NA continent where it is said there appeared open sea where ice once blocked travel in that area). So nature or man? Or maybe a cycle that is natural being influenced further by man that might tip the natural balance?

 

I read somewhere else recently that meat eating is a huge (30%? More?) cause of global warming, due to cow farts or cow shit or something like that! :) (So how come no one is calling for a reduction in beef eating?) And also due to forest clearings to make pasture for the cattle to feed.

 

Personally, being from Boston/New England, I am all for global warming. I intend to buy a couple mountain tops in Maine and wait for them to become island paradises and make a killing selling oceanfront property! :D I hope one day I will not ever see again 'Think Snow' bumper stickers, or ski racks on Volvos on Rte. 95.

 

Surf's up! Wax up the sticks and slap on the suntan lotion!

 

Cent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GTG,

 

Whosyourdaddy is still in Bangkok, but his family responsibilites and distance from the action keep him away from the meetings most nights.

 

Like I said, I did see you and you were definately a girl...I just can't verify that the person I met was the person writing the posts. In any case, I was sorry you never returned...it would've been nice if you'd have stopped by more often (also, there wouldn't have been any confusion about this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...