Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Stupid" Questions :o  (Read 569544 times)

Glen Koehler

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3000 on: December 20, 2019, 03:13:44 AM »
But I prefer to see Stonehenge as an early silicon based computer running at 1 Hz / annum.
+1!

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3001 on: December 20, 2019, 09:00:32 AM »
The sixth power, depending on how you calculate it, is either a squared cube or a cubed square.
And what on earth is "a cube squared" and what has it to do with anything?

The height a tidal bulge rises goes up as an inverse cube of the distance to the tide raising body.

Well, yes, according to Wikipedia this is a good approximation. The gravitational pull varies at a rate inverse to the square of the distance, and the tidal force at a rate inverse to the cube of the distance.

But I am unable to find any reference to the "square of the height of the bulge" (presumably you mean the square of the strength of the tidal force). To me it doesn't seem logical, as the difference between the speed of Earth's rotation and the Moon's rotation around the earth should also have an effect?
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3002 on: December 20, 2019, 11:50:03 AM »
I don't understand your question about "rotation around the earth".
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3003 on: December 22, 2019, 09:54:23 AM »
I don't understand your question about "rotation around the earth".

Perhaps a bit unclear! The Earth spins or rotates around itself once daily (or close enough), and around the Sun once a year. The Moon does not rotate around itself as seen from Earth, but rotates around the Earth once every 28 days or thereabouts, always turning the same face towards the Earth. And of course the Moon rotates around the sun in sync with the Earth.

The reason for the Moon always facing the same side towards Earth is tidal friction - the same effect as is responsible for slowing down the Earth. After the formation of the Moon, both satellites would have been rotating (spinning) around their own center of gravity, but the tidal effect of the bigger Earth on the smaller Moon has ended with the Moon essentially ceasing to spin as seen from Earth.

Eventually the same effect will cause the Earth to stop rotating around itself (spinning) as seen from the Moon, so the two satellites would always turn the same face towards each other, but would continue to rotate in sync around their shared center of gravity.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3004 on: December 22, 2019, 10:39:31 AM »
In something like 50 billion years this will happen (if the red giant sun doesn’t swallow them first). Then solar tides will drive them closer together until the moon rips asunder.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3005 on: December 29, 2019, 10:19:02 AM »
How much influence in AGW comes from:
1) Albedo changes (such as paving huge areas with blacktop)?
2) Energy release (such as power plants putting heat directly into the environment)?
I imagine both would be small, but it would be interesting to compare them to such trace gasses as SF6.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1032
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 503
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3006 on: December 29, 2019, 05:13:33 PM »
I would say negligible.

Ice loss albedo change is a big player but it is a feedback.
 
Albedo changes due to pavement and buildings are also just a feedback (and less powerful then the ice version because they are build in already darker areas).

The direct release of heat is local and small (because it costs the company money).
Some volcanoes always have a lava lake but that does not count either.

So i would put their number at 0.

SF6 needs to be tightly regulated (safer alternatives exist for some uses see link in the SF6 thread in science).

SF6
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

PragmaticAntithesis

  • New ice
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3007 on: December 29, 2019, 08:48:28 PM »
SF6 needs to be tightly regulated (safer alternatives exist for some uses see link in the SF6 thread in science).

SF6 is already fairly tightly regulated here in the EU under the F-gas directive 2006.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2592
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3008 on: December 29, 2019, 09:58:25 PM »
How much influence in AGW comes from:
1) Albedo changes (such as paving huge areas with blacktop)?
2) Energy release (such as power plants putting heat directly into the environment)?
I imagine both would be small, but it would be interesting to compare them to such trace gasses as SF6.

Energy release is pretty near negligible levels.

Albedo changes need to affect large areas to have much of an effect. Deforestation changes from dark green to more reflective lighter shades for grass/scrub is a cooling effect that unfortunately may well more than outweigh new dark roads but the effects are more local i.e urban heat island effects rather than having much global effect (where differing effects may cancel and not have much effect over the much larger unaffected areas).

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5185
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 490
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3009 on: December 30, 2019, 12:07:14 AM »
Paved area in USA is abouy the size of Ohio. Global energy use is around 15 terawatt. But most engines are inefficient, so approximately a third to half is rejected to the environment. This is dwarfed by earth radiative imbalance of around half a petawatt, and completely insignificant when compared to intercepted radiation from the sun which is more than a thousand times larger than radiative imbalance.

sidd

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3010 on: December 30, 2019, 09:10:01 AM »
How much influence in AGW comes from:
1) Albedo changes (such as paving huge areas with blacktop)?
2) Energy release (such as power plants putting heat directly into the environment)?
I imagine both would be small, but it would be interesting to compare them to such trace gasses as SF6.
Although both are probably negligible at this time, they do raise an interesting point: The ever growing human energy requirements will probably always cause a warmer climate, even without CO2 release. All the energy we use end up as heat released into the atmosphere, and this heat warms the planet ever so slightly, magnified somewhat by a positive feedback in the form of increased H2O.

Solar energy is a good example: Solar installations have a much lower albedo than the underlying surface. Part of this goes into a local heating effect, the rest is released as heat elsewhere. Wind and hydroelectric power convert kinetic energy to heat. Geothermal and nuclear power stations release heat that would otherwise take much longer to reach the atmosphere.

So is this effect something that would ever make any difference? I'm not at all sure whether it would be big enough to stop us from sliding inexorably into the next glacial period. Without man-made CO2 release, temperature would already by 1 - 2 degrees Centigrade lower than they are today, and trending inexorably downwards at somewhere around 0.1 degrees per century.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2442
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 333
  • Likes Given: 185
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3011 on: December 30, 2019, 09:16:32 AM »
How much influence in AGW comes from:
1) Albedo changes (such as paving huge areas with blacktop)?
2) Energy release (such as power plants putting heat directly into the environment)?
I imagine both would be small, but it would be interesting to compare them to such trace gasses as SF6.

How much those things add to the mathematical concept of a rise in the global average temperature? Probably small. However, the local consequence on temperatures and other metrics of albedo changes and deforestation is significant. Combined with the expectancy of a warmer climate things get complicated.

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2612
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 183
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3012 on: December 30, 2019, 09:25:24 PM »
Yes, currently, the amount of heat generated directly from all the processes that keep industrial society going is negligible when compared to the amount CO2, methane and other ghgs are heating the planet.

But I think it was Ugo Bardi who calculated that, with a moderate rate of economic growth (I think it was 3%), even if all energy is produced with zero CO2 emissions, the heat from economic activity would in 200 years (as I recall) end up warming the earth to the level of the surface of the sun.

I may have gotten some details wrong, but the point is clear--eternal economic growth is utter idiocy on a finite planet, no matter where the energy for that growth comes from.

ETA: It looks like the study was probably incorporated into this book: https://www.routledge.com/Physical-Limits-to-Economic-Growth-Perspectives-of-Economic-Social-and/Burlando-Tartaglia/p/book/9781138231603
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3013 on: December 30, 2019, 11:01:03 PM »
I remember a book titled Hothouse Earth that made that argument.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2592
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3014 on: December 31, 2019, 12:26:19 AM »
Quote
The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.

https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

200 years at 3% growth gets to nearly 370* current level of waste heat - so 3.7 times current GHG effect, but that is hardly warming the earth to the level of the surface of the sun.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3015 on: December 31, 2019, 01:14:10 AM »
Quote
The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.

https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

200 years at 3% growth gets to nearly 370* current level of waste heat - so 3.7 times current GHG effect, but that is hardly warming the earth to the level of the surface of the sun.

Of course, all you have to do is make it a few hundred years longer. We'll get there.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4635
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 990
  • Likes Given: 1331
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3016 on: December 31, 2019, 07:54:37 AM »
Growth will not last beyond a few decades at most, and collapse will fix any waste heat effects. But just out of curiosity, is there any waste heat of wind energy? You capture energy from the atmosphere, and release it elsewhere. My layman analysis says this process adds no net energy. Hydro seems to be the same. If anyone has info to the contrary please enlighten.
In addition, is there much waste heat from solar PV? The captured sunlight was reaching the Earth anyway. There is some albedo effect but the net waste heat is much lower than the net waste heat from mined thermal coal or natgas or refined gasoline.
So it seems to the calculation referenced above isn't valid as presented, growth isn't the only parameter and energy mix can't be ignored.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3017 on: December 31, 2019, 08:19:15 AM »
But I think it was Ugo Bardi who calculated that, with a moderate rate of economic growth (I think it was 3%), even if all energy is produced with zero CO2 emissions, the heat from economic activity would in 200 years (as I recall) end up warming the earth to the level of the surface of the sun.

I may have gotten some details wrong, but the point is clear--eternal economic growth is utter idiocy on a finite planet, no matter where the energy for that growth comes from.

ETA: It looks like the study was probably incorporated into this book: https://www.routledge.com/Physical-Limits-to-Economic-Growth-Perspectives-of-Economic-Social-and/Burlando-Tartaglia/p/book/9781138231603

Very interesting, a pity that there is not more on Ugo Bardi on-line. But I can see that his "The Limits to Growth" was published in 1972 by the Club of Rome and I'm not sure that the predictions made then have held up. Reminds me of the famous "The Global 2000 Report" made for President Carter in 1980. I was one of those who actually bought and read it and was very afraid. But none of the predictions came true.

I'm pretty sure that the "hot as the sun" in 200 years is wrong, I'm not sure that it would be physically possible ever for waste heat generated on earth to cause more than a few degrees in total.

Our energy demand grows all the time, although rarely by more than 2% per year, while population growth is at around 1% per year. Global GDP growth tends to fluctuate quite a lot, but is currently running at long-term average around 3.5% per year.

In the absence of civilisational collapse, some of these figures will probably have changed downwards by the year 2100. Population growth will most likely stall sometime after 2050 followed by decline. As developing nations catch up with the rest, global GDP would tend towards the "western" average which is currently around 2% but given that by 2100 all western nations will be seeing significant falls in population by then, making all predictions pretty useless.

What that means for energy demand is difficult to predict, but I'd be surprised if energy demand would stall or even fall over the next couple of centuries, given our relentless technological advances.

So 2% annual growth means a 30 fold increase or thereabouts by 2200, significant but not surface-of-the-sun stuff. And probably still insignificant when compared to the accumulated effects of human-released CO2.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3018 on: December 31, 2019, 09:16:46 AM »
But just out of curiosity, is there any waste heat of wind energy? You capture energy from the atmosphere, and release it elsewhere. My layman analysis says this process adds no net energy. Hydro seems to be the same. If anyone has info to the contrary please enlighten.

There is never an increase in net energy. One of the fundamental laws of physics is the preservation of energy, which trumps the often heard law of preservation of matter.

We capture energy in one form (chemical, kinetic, radiative, nuclear) and use it to do work which at the same time converts it into waste heat. So the energy is preserved, it's form is not.

When we capture energy from wind or rain (i.e. hydro) we are in effect capturing kinetic energy by increasing local resistance to the free movement of wind or water. So the kinetic energy is turned into electricity, used to do work, and released as waste heat. But of course, that's where it would have ended up anyway given enough time - so perhaps we could think of this as increasing the rate of atmospheric kinetic energy to waste heat conversion.

Solar energy installation apparently have a direct albedo effect of 0.3, very close to the average for the entire globe, and as such should not make any difference on a global average. Solar panels on roof tops probably lower local albedo (depending on what material was on the roof to begin with). Sand is reflective, so solar arrays built in desert areas will increase the albedo effect, while similar arrays over open water decrease albedo.

Interestingly enough, whether the 70% of energy captured by a solar panel is released directly as heat, or used to do work elsewhere and later released as heat, makes no difference (currently the best installations convert around 15% to electricity, meaning that 55% or so is released directly as heat). So solar panels are probably neutral all things considered.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3019 on: December 31, 2019, 09:44:13 AM »
Actually it is the conservation of matter-energy. When you "burn" uranium, the waste products are slightly lighter. When you burn coal, the waste products are very slightly lighter.
And so far Limits to Growth's basic scenario is right on. Collapse began about 2030 in that run. What the 2000 deadline was about was the point where we could still avoid it.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4635
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 990
  • Likes Given: 1331
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3020 on: December 31, 2019, 10:11:57 AM »
Binntho, before you offhandedly dismiss the influential and important "Limits to Growth", I recommend that you read the 2004 follow-on "Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update," which revisits the original simulations and does a better job of explaining what they mean.
For some reason it is to be found online easily, so here is the link:
http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Limits-to-Growth-updated.pdf

Recommended to all.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3021 on: December 31, 2019, 11:35:26 AM »
Tom, it is "conservation of energy". Matter consists of energy (and not the other way around).

Cassandrists, Malthusians and Luddites are ten a penny at all times and in all societies. We humans seem to have an inbuilt liking for predictions of doom - nobody became famous for saying that it's all going to work out fine, in fact, those who dare voicing any degree of optimism for the future of our species seem to become automatically vilified.

And when it turns out that the world didn't end, you write a book about why not, and find that you made a small error, and the end of the world is next year .. or perhaps the following year ...  So reading a 20 year old book about why predictions made 50 years ago have not become true yet (but will, definitely, within the next 5 years!) is not really my idea of a productive time.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4635
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 990
  • Likes Given: 1331
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3022 on: December 31, 2019, 12:12:22 PM »
It's great that you can comment so succinctly on a book you haven't read. I envy you the ability.
To others who might be more open minded, I strongly recommend to give it a go. It's quite readable, not long, and lays out many of humanity's problems and challenges.

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2056
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 1205
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3023 on: December 31, 2019, 01:04:22 PM »
in fact, those who dare voicing any degree of optimism for the future of our species seem to become automatically vilified.

I put an overly optimistic post in the 2030 thread and actually no one vilified me.
The apocalypse is already here; it's just not very evenly distributed.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3024 on: December 31, 2019, 01:04:37 PM »
You can call energy diluted matter or matter concentrated energy as you will.
The other way is just as valid.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2612
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 183
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3025 on: December 31, 2019, 09:45:55 PM »
As I said, I may have missed a data point or two. It may have been a slightly higher rate of growth and it may have been 400 years...

In any case, eternal growth is both impossible and undesirable on this planet. But yeah, not likely to happen anyway.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7157
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1941
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3026 on: December 31, 2019, 11:01:26 PM »
As I said, I may have missed a data point or two. It may have been a slightly higher rate of growth and it may have been 400 years...

In any case, eternal growth is both impossible and undesirable on this planet. But yeah, not likely to happen anyway.
Growth at 3%
1.03 to the 400th power is 136,423
1.03 to the 200th power is 369
1.03 to the 100th power is 19
1.03 to the 50th power is 4.4
1.03 to the 10th power is 1.34

Choose your place for Armageddon


"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4033
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 459
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3027 on: January 01, 2020, 07:13:16 PM »
in fact, those who dare voicing any degree of optimism for the future of our species seem to become automatically vilified.

I put an overly optimistic post in the 2030 thread and actually no one vilified me.

I did ask what you were smoking.

Fractious

  • NewMembers
  • New ice
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3028 on: January 04, 2020, 12:28:10 AM »
Where is the thickest ice locaded..iether pole?
2020 Artic Ice Extent will be 14,610,011

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2592
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3029 on: January 04, 2020, 02:25:52 PM »
googling thickest ice on earth, I get

Quote
The thickest ice in the world forms part of the Antarctic Ice Sheet where it sits over a region known as the Astrolabe Subglacial Basin to the south of the Adélie Coast. Here, the ice sheet has been measured to be 4,897 metres (16,066 feet) thick.

This I think is probably wrong if world includes places like Enceladus.

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2056
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 1205
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3030 on: January 04, 2020, 03:06:15 PM »
So which pole on Enceladus has the thicker ice now? :P
The apocalypse is already here; it's just not very evenly distributed.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3031 on: January 04, 2020, 03:49:23 PM »
Enceladas’ Plumes are at the South Pole, so I would guess the North Pole has the thicker ice.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2592
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3032 on: January 04, 2020, 04:21:15 PM »
So which pole on Enceladus has the thicker ice now? :P

Enceladas’ Plumes are at the South Pole, so I would guess the North Pole has the thicker ice.

Why poles? If the poles are flatter like on earth due to spin and gravity and if the core has smaller deviations from spherical because it is smaller, why not near the equator for the thickest ice? Any heat that deep and far from sun is almost certainly far more gravitational squeezing than any solar effect. Sorry no idea of distribution of gravitational heat distribution or whether the heat makes the ice thicker or thinner.

South polar region has 10 mile thick ocean, but I am unsure of the depth. Still, agree we can probably rule out South pole region.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3033 on: January 04, 2020, 04:35:58 PM »
You’re right, crandles, but I was answering blumenkraft’s question.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2056
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 1205
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3034 on: January 04, 2020, 04:43:59 PM »
The original question was about the poles. :D

PS: This is hilarious! Love you guys. ;)
The apocalypse is already here; it's just not very evenly distributed.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3210
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 478
  • Likes Given: 215
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3035 on: January 04, 2020, 06:07:30 PM »
"Poles" being "thick" was the basis of many ethnic jokes of my youth that I despised.  (The jokes never distinguished between southern Poles and northern Poles, however.)  And then, in 1968, visiting relatives in Poland, I heard (translated by my father) a joke about thick-headed Polish politicians (it being during the Iron Curtain era).
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 451
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3036 on: January 04, 2020, 06:29:44 PM »
"Poles" being "thick" was the basis of many ethnic jokes of my youth that I despised.  (The jokes never distinguished between southern Poles and northern Poles, however.)  And then, in 1968, visiting relatives in Poland, I heard (translated by my father) a joke about thick-headed Polish politicians (it being during the Iron Curtain era).
Yes, here in Cleveland was for many years a movie host named Big Chuck (who was Polish).
He, with a co-host and other station staff did skits during the movies, often featuring “certain ethnic” characters.
I am surprised your relative was brave enough to make such a joke there and then.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

wdmn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3037 on: January 04, 2020, 07:53:04 PM »
Here's a cluster of stupid questions:

It's generally accepted that the earth was cooling prior to anthropogenic warming. Is there any research on how much the earth would have cooled since the pre-industrial baseline (1880-1889)? Has anyone included cooling overcome by the warming in measurements of how much warming we've actually caused? Wouldn't this be important for things like ECS? I don't suspect it would have been much (maybe 0.1C), but even so, considering cooling from aerosols, even 0.1C of cooling adds to just how grim things are.



kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1032
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 503
  • Likes Given: 442
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3038 on: January 05, 2020, 04:31:51 PM »
See fig 4. The green line is that research.

https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

Basically they have because to find out the human contribution to climate change you have to tease out the background natural signal which includes that. The effect is dwarfed by our CO2 contributions. See link above for numbers.

Of course it is more complicated. We were influencing climate before that (see Ruddiman 2003).

I think our bigger problem is not having a good detailed high resolution record of a warming planet and associated changes.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1392
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 192
  • Likes Given: 8801
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3039 on: January 08, 2020, 05:56:07 PM »
<snip>
I think our bigger problem is not having a good detailed high resolution record of a warming planet and associated changes.

Especially no record of a rise in atmospheric CO2 by 65 ppm in 30 years.
And also no record of a mass extinction rate of dozens of lifeforms per day.

What causes it?
'This' clearly is something especially destructive.
'This' = civilisation.
Civilisation = a subset of humans forming an insanely destructive culture.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

Sambuccu

  • New ice
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3040 on: January 09, 2020, 07:44:52 PM »
Hi,
Late happy new year to everybody,

This is my stupid question :
I had a fonctional link to DMI volume raw data, but it seems to be not working anymore : http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt

I have an argument with a climate change denialist who used to looooooove DMI since last october, and has now forgotten its very existence.
I would like to help him.

 

John_The_Elder

  • New ice
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3041 on: January 09, 2020, 09:11:38 PM »
John

Sambuccu

  • New ice
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #3042 on: January 09, 2020, 10:21:08 PM »
Is this link of any help?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
John

Thank you, but I can't find any data here. Unless I dont see some link to them ?
I'm looking for daily data on a spreadsheet or doc, something like this : https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxhcmN0aXNjaGVwaW5ndWlufGd4OjU1OGIwZWI0NGI2ZDI5YTM

It was on the link I gave above, but they removed or displaced it.