Damming rivers slows down Earth's rotation

[Nick]

More coriolis effect oddities. . .

The direction of rotation of cyclones is anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere.

It is high pressure areas that rotate in the directions I describe earlier.

Still, not knowing about how the Coriolis force works, or why it doesn't apply on small scales is hardly criminal scientific ignorance (I mean, while knowing about it's kind of interesting, it isn't all that useful for most people, is it?)

[Durandal]

Just as a note: Because earth is a closed system, any change enacted by us stuff on earth is undone.

The Earth is not a closed system. It is bombarded my almost 64 megatons of solar radiation per day, not to mention cosmic rays, meteorite impacts, and the like.

[kojikun]

When I said earth is a closed system, i meant in the sense that it doesn't exert physical force onto other objects in the form of rotation, atleast no in any significant way.

[Kamakazie Sith]

HAHAH this reminds me of when I heard someone once say that if we continue building things on this Earth, the planet will get too heavy and fall from it's orbit around the sun.

[Nick]

When I said earth is a closed system, i meant in the sense that it doesn't exert physical force onto other objects in the form of rotation, atleast no in any significant way.

Eh?

Yes it does - how do you think the Coriolis effect works? Why do rocket ships have an enormous tangential velocty when they take off, even though their thrust is directed almost entirely upward?

What are you trying to say here?

[Crown]

<devil's advocate>Nick, one might argue that the rocket's are apart of the 'Earth system'. </devil's advocate>

[Nick]

<devil's advocate>Nick, one might argue that the rocket's are apart of the 'Earth system'. </devil's advocate>

I went back and checked the context of kojikun's original quote.

I think what he is saying is that, over time, angular momentum is conserved, regardless of the minor perturbations introduced by the actions of humans and other animals, because we are, in effect, part of the Earth.

My gut instinct tells me this is incorrect, particularly if we start considering aeroplanes and rockets (and deliberate attempts to alter the planet's angular momentum). However, I'm not currently up to the task of determining whether my instincts are accurate on the matter - the effect of the movement of objects in a radial gravitiational field, on the angular momentum of the body generating that field, being something less than my specialty.

[salm]

If the polar caps melt only mount everest will be above waterlevel.
(So that's why I spill my drink everytime that the ice melts in it).

if the ice melts it means that it got warmer. the same mass with a higher temperature has a larger volume.

i guess it wouldnt be enough to fill the whole world up to mt everest.

[Shadow]

if the ice melts it means that it got warmer. the same mass with a higher temperature has a larger volume.

That is normally correct. Water actually takes up less space than ice, however. It is an exception to that rule.

[Nick]

if the ice melts it means that it got warmer. the same mass with a higher temperature has a larger volume.

That is normally correct. Water actually takes up less space than ice, however. It is an exception to that rule.

Yup - when water is in liquid form, all of the molecules slide past each other and pack in fairly densely. When it forms ice, it takes up a crystalline structure which actually leaves more gaps between molecules, and means the ice ends up taking up more space (because there are more and larger internal 'gaps').

An interesting idea (that I've never really followed up to see if it is true) was that one of the problems with global warming was that it might raise the average temperature of the ocean slightly. If this happened, it might lead to a minuscule reduction in the average density of seawater. Of course, a minuscule reduction in the density of a sufficiently large mass of water could lead to a significant change in volume - thus causing sea level to rise.

The idea seems reasonable enough - but tracking it down would require finding out more about:
- how much would global temperatures have to rise to have a significant effect on the ocean temperature?
- how much would the ocean temperature have to rise to have a significant effect on the density of sea water?
- how much would the density of the oceans have to change to have a significant effect on sea level?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions - and I'm not motivated enough to track them down. It's an intriguing concept, though.

[Spoonist]

How come everyone started picking on my attempt of humor?
(First I just had the statements and : roll: , but it looked boring so I added the puns).

First let's start with Nick's post because he had the most "criticism".

On the northern hemisphere the swirl in the toilet go clockwise in the southern hemisphere it goes anti clockwise.
(Stick your head down the toilet and flush, maybe you will see something that helps your reasoning).

Are you trying to say the coriolis effect doesn't occur in submarines?

You later retracted this nitpick. But I'll still point it out to you.
Go ahead and go to the toilet and flush!
You see, all modern toilets have been designed so that it will create a vortex. Because that way more doodoo will be removed. As a side effect the manufacturers have also decided which way the vortex will twirl.

It's like this someone much like yourself has read about this 'cool' effect, extrapolated and came up with the urban legend. The problem is that it's faulty in all premises. The coriolis effect is insignificant when it comes to flushing.
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html

If the polar caps melt only mount everest will be above waterlevel.
(So that's why I spill my drink everytime that the ice melts in it).

The ice in your drink is almost completely submerged before it melts. A lot of the ice in the polar caps is above sea level.

Your point being?
This nitpick is a totally redundant point.
(I admit that my attempt at humor here seemed to pass under everyones nose).
Even in the most pessimistic scenarios, we are talking about a 100 meters (~330feet) increase of the water levels. Though this would be tragic for all coastal areas it will not drown our planet. Most mountain regions are at least 500 meters (~1565feet). Now to compare this with mount everest which tops at 8850 meters (~29000feet) is just ridicilous.
http://www.rumela.com/travel/travel_wonder_everest.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

Medicine gives more side-effects than herbal remedies.
(That's right, so run away take some belladonna, opium and we will discuss afterwards).

Quite possibly true, since many 'herbal remedies' work by nothing more than placebo effect. (i.e. they don't have any effect, let alone side effects)

I really hope that you are being obstinate and not that naïve.
Most herbs used in traditional medicine have effects and side-effects.
The difference being that most people have no clues what the effects or the side-effects are.
Hundreds of people die each year because of ignorance like your own.

Please re-educate yourself.
http://www.joelacey.org/Article23.html
http://www.fcs.okstate.edu/food/nutriti ... l-cont.htm
http://www.state.sd.us/social/ASA/Medic ... danger.htm
http://www.couplescompany.com/Advice/Ja ... /herb2.htm
http://www.medcomres.com/articles/table ... urgery.htm

You can never prove anything.
(Just because you can't doesn't mean it's impossible).

Depends on the definition of 'prove'. If they mean 100% proof, then (to steal Mike's example) it is impossible to prove that they aren't a brain in a vat, and the rest of the world their delusion. Consequently, it is impossible to prove anything (since it might all just be an arbitrary delusion).

Bullshit! This just shows the persons ignorance of classical philosophy.
If you are so fond of quoting Mike then why don't you quote his refutation as well? It includes a pistol.
To quote myself instead, if you claim that nothing can be proven then you are excused from the debate since you know nothing.

http://www-logic.stanford.edu/proofsurvey.html
http://radicalacademy.com/phildescartes1.htm
http://www.inexpressible.com/claim.html
http://plus.maths.org/issue10/features/proof4/

Humans only use 10% of their brains.
(In your case that's true but for the rest of us...)

For some reason, people always miss out the 'for conscious thought' which should be tacked on to the end of this statement (and even then, I'm still not sure if it is particularly accurate).

Being a besserwisser you should really go check sources sometimes.
http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm


And also a future tip to you; don't smalltalk and criticise in the same post, it usually confuses people to the point where they think that your small talk is criticism.

[Spoonist]

->Nick & all

regarding water.
Here is the formula:
www.earthwardconsulting.com/density.xls
Here is the graph:
http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/ice.html

Water is an exception to almost all the rules.
It is as most dense at ~3.97'C.

Therefore a change from 10'C to 15'C would increase the volume by 0.06 percent. Now this doesn't sound like much but when you consider that the oceans consist of 317,000,000 cubic miles of water that would be another ~190 000 cubic miles of water.

Water source/Water volume in cubic miles/Percent oftotal water
Oceans 317,000,000 97.24%
Icecaps, Glaciers 7,000,000 2.14%
Ground water 2,000,000 0.61%
Fresh-water lakes 30,000 0.009%
Inland seas 25,000 0.008%
Soil moisture 16,000 0.005%
Atmosphere 3,100 0.001%
Rivers 300 0.0001%
Total water volume 326,000,000 100%

[salm]

if the ice melts it means that it got warmer. the same mass with a higher temperature has a larger volume.

That is normally correct. Water actually takes up less space than ice, however. It is an exception to that rule.

damn... i normaly know that. what the hell? time that the semester starts again, the gears in my brain need some oil!

[Nick]

How come everyone started picking on my attempt of humor?
(First I just had the statements and : roll: , but it looked boring so I added the puns).

Because most of them were funny, but a few had the potential to backfire and make the smart-alec look stupid. I guess it wouldn't have hurt to make that clear, though. . .

::snip the Coriolis stuff::
I'm just glad I checked up on it myself, before someone else beat me to it

If the polar caps melt only mount everest will be above waterlevel.
(So that's why I spill my drink everytime that the ice melts in it).

The ice in your drink is almost completely submerged before it melts. A lot of the ice in the polar caps is above sea level.

Your point being?
This nitpick is a totally redundant point.
(I admit that my attempt at humor here seemed to pass under everyones nose).

My response was based on the fact that this attempt at humour resulted in a statement almost as stupid as the one it was making fun of.

You are right that the original statement was really dumb - but your riposte is equally dumb (well, maybe not equally. . .)

Most herbs used in traditional medicine have effects and side-effects.
The difference being that most people have no clues what the effects or the side-effects are.

My bad. I was thinking of homeopathy in particular rather than herbal remedies in general.
http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/park.html

Comment retracted

Bullshit! This just shows the persons ignorance of classical philosophy.
If you are so fond of quoting Mike then why don't you quote his refutation as well? It includes a pistol.
To quote myself instead, if you claim that nothing can be proven then you are excused from the debate since you know nothing.

Yes, I agree. My point was that your smart alec response was inaccurate, because it is impossible to prove anything to the standard they are talking about. That's why you should do exactly as you say and point out what a stupid comment it is - but do so without inadvertently claiming that it is possible to prove something to 100% certainty (which is what your response did).

Humans only use 10% of their brains.
(In your case that's true but for the rest of us...)

For some reason, people always miss out the 'for conscious thought' which should be tacked on to the end of this statement (and even then, I'm still not sure if it is particularly accurate).

Being a besserwisser you should really go check sources sometimes.
http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
[/quote]

And so? Do you class your visual cortex as being used 'for conscious thought'? Your involuntary motor control region? Your voluntary motor control region for that matter? What about the areas dedicated to auditory processing, speech production or speech comprehension? The distributed neurons responsible for holding our long-term memories?

Our brain is NOT a big, undifferentiated blob. Different areas are used for different things - sure the boundaries are fuzzy, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And the area dedicated to the higher cognitive functions (what I would term 'conscious thought') just isn't that big a fraction of the whole. It's a respectable chunk, to be sure, but it is far from the whole thing. If you tack ' for conscious thought' on to the original statement, it becomes a much more reasonable comment. Surely you didn't think I was claiming that the part of our brain which isn't used for conscious thought, wasn't being used for anything? (Well actually, given the links you posted, it's pretty clear you did think that)

And as for the besserwisser crack - well, given that you are such a fine practitioner of the art, I'm sure you can understand its allure

And also a future tip to you; don't smalltalk and criticise in the same post, it usually confuses people to the point where they think that your small talk is criticism.

Alternatively, they could take a more positive outlook on life, and recognise the tone of the post as such that it is all intended as small talk (and an attempt to help someone avoid making an ass of themselves when they screw up trying to impress an audience with how knowledgeable they are).

However, I do agree I could have my purpose much clearer - I was definitely trying to be helpful

[salm]

Being a besserwisser you should really go check sources sometimes.

is besserwisser really used in english speaking countries?

[Spoonist]

Being a besserwisser you should really go check sources sometimes.

is besserwisser really used in english speaking countries?

Nope, but it's such a good word that I just have to use it. It's even better when they have to look it up and then pretend that they knew the term all along, sort of like;
"You are a real bessermesser!"
"Actually it's called a besserwisser."

And as for the besserwisser crack - well, given that you are such a fine practitioner of the art, I'm sure you can understand its allure

Guilty as charged...

Couldn't quite get the angle of your response to the 10% myth- thing.
But it doesn't matter.

Friends

[Nick]

Being a besserwisser you should really go check sources sometimes.

is besserwisser really used in english speaking countries?

Nope, but it's such a good word that I just have to use it. It's even better when they have to look it up and then pretend that they knew the term all along, sort of like;
"You are a real bessermesser!"
"Actually it's called a besserwisser."

*looks around guiltily*
*quietly erases record of Google search for 'besserwisser'*

Couldn't quite get the angle of your response to the 10% myth- thing.
But it doesn't matter.

True, but I like to clear up misunderstandings

I used the phrase 'for conscious thought', thinking in terms of the difference between the thoughts we are aware of, and all of the background processing our brain does (sensory processing, voluntary muscle control, the autonomic nervous system, language processing, etc, etc - all the stuff we have a hard time replicating with a computer, because we barely know anything about how we manage it, let alone the best ways to get a computer to do it).

In context, I suspect it seemed like I was using it in the sense of that old "harness the power of your subconscious" rubbish. You pointed out that that was idiotic, and then I didn't take too kindly to the idea that someone might suggest that I was thinking something so stupid

All based on two different meanings of a three word phrase

Friends

And done

[Nick]

Therefore a change from 10'C to 15'C would increase the volume by 0.06 percent. Now this doesn't sound like much but when you consider that the oceans consist of 317,000,000 cubic miles of water that would be another ~190 000 cubic miles of water.

Hmm, anyone know the rough surface area of the oceans?

I could guesstimate based on 70% of the Earth's surface, but that would involve looking up the radius of the Earth (since I can never remember it for some reason).

Eh, maybe I'll follow this up tomorrow (unless someone else is feeling energetic)

[Spoonist]

->Nick

It wouldn't even den't the sealevel if that's what you are thinking of.

Earth Surface:
Total Surface Area: about 509,600,000 square km (197,000,000 square miles)
Area of land: 148,326,000 km2 (57,268,900 square miles), this are 29% of the total surface of the Earth
Area of water: 361,740,000 km2 (139,668,500 square miles), this are 71% of the total surface of the Earth.
97 percent is salt water, only 3 percent is fresh water

[Nick]

It wouldn't even den't the sealevel if that's what you are thinking of.

A grand total of 84 centimetres for the figures you gave.

Definitely non-trivial if the temperature change was big enough, but according to your numbers, a mere fraction of what melting of a significant portion of the icecaps could achieve.

Ah well - just curious