Science Discussion

[BambooRdApp]

And other "general" mistakes. High speed trains that travel throughout the U.S.

[Saint3333]

And other "general" mistakes. High speed trains that travel throughout the U.S.

Another one! The lack of long-term planning the last 70 years is baffling. We used to be a nation builder, for three generations we've been the nation of bandaids.

[Mjohn1988]

And other "general" mistakes. High speed trains that travel throughout the U.S.

Another one! The lack of long-term planning the last 70 years is baffling. We used to be a nation builder, for three generations we've been the nation of bandaids.

That’s what happens when you want everything now, I mean right now. You can only have so much right now. But people don’t want priorities, we must have everything.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Remember the question: What is something about losing ice (besides sea level rise) that could create a bad feedback for future climate change.

(I'll comment on nuclear at some point.)

[t4pizza]

Next Question: Melting ice is part of sea level rise though not the largest contributor. However besides, sea level rise the melting ice could cause a feedback loop that makes global climate change even worse. What is the connection to global climate change and the melting ice at the poles. (I am thinking of one thing in particular but there could be two responses I would take as correct. I am not sure if I am wording this correctly.)

Are you looking for the North Atlantic Current? It brings warm water north and helps keep world wide temperatures within tolerable tolerances, however it if collapses the Earth can actually get colder. But I was a political science and history guy so I don't put much faith in my answer.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

There is some concern how a changing Gulf Stream could be a concern for Northern Europe. I am not sure if the whole earth is predicted to get colder. I need to read more about this as I am aware of the ideas in broad strokes but should learn more about the specifics.

I'll give my take on my question on Sunday. I am rewatching the GaSt game right now.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

So question 2 was about two parts to how ice melt is tied into the process of climate change.

1. Albedo is the factor from 0 to 1 for the amount of light that is reflected off a planet. Asphalt would be close to 0 and white paint would be closer to 1. Ice is pushing near 1. What that means is having more ice means more of the suns energy is reflected back to space instead of being absorbed by the earth. Ocean water and land has a lower albedo. The more energy that is absorbed the more the earth will warm. This creates a feedback loop where more ice melt means more surface area with lower albedo (land and water) which means more energy being absorbed due to more land/water surface, which raises temperatures, which melts more ice, which creates more land/water that absorbs more energy, which raises temperatures, which melts more ice. Not a good cycle at all. Given the fact this message board skews male it seems I do want to mention that I am typing albedo and not libido.

2. The other factor with the melting ice is the ideal of latent heat. When an object is going through a phase change (say melting from a solid to a liquid) the temperature is not changing. The heat (absorbed for melting, and released for freezing) is going into either breaking bonds (melting) or making bonds (freezing) instead of raising temperature. Heat being absorbed either goes into raising temperature or breaking bonds in a phase change. Both do not happen at the same time. Right now the heat in the atmosphere is going into breaking bonds and not as much into raising temperature since we are melting the ice. Once the ice is gone, and we are heading in that direction, the temperatures will shoot up much higher since the ice will not be there to absorb the heat.

This latent heat is one reason ice storms tend to not go on for long periods of time. There is energy being released by the water in the air as it freezes from a liquid state to a solid state. The released latent energy (heat of fusion is the name by the way.) is absorbed by the air and that in turn raises the temperature of the air and once the temperature is above the freezing point the ice is not being made and the ice storm starts.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Question 3: Combustion is a chemical reaction that occurs when a hydrocarbon reacts with oxygen. What are the products in a combustion reaction? A hydrocarbon is a compound that contains carbon and hydrogen. Oxygen may also be involved.

[BTK2000]

Question 3: Combustion is a chemical reaction that occurs when a hydrocarbon reacts with oxygen. What are the products in a combustion reaction? A hydrocarbon is a compound that contains carbon and hydrogen. Oxygen may also be involved.

In a complete combustion reaction of a hydrocarbon H2O and CO2 are the products

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Question 3: Combustion is a chemical reaction that occurs when a hydrocarbon reacts with oxygen. What are the products in a combustion reaction? A hydrocarbon is a compound that contains carbon and hydrogen. Oxygen may also be involved.

In a complete combustion reaction of a hydrocarbon H2O and CO2 are the products

I like how you used the word complete. If there is not enough oxygen available you will also produce CO, since the amount of O needed is cut in half.

Both water vapor and carbon dioxide gas are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. There are other gases beyond these two that are capable of the heat trapping.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Question 4: What property of water keeps northern Europe so much warmer than would be the case at their latitudes?

[t4pizza]

The gulf stream

[appstatealum]

Remember the question: What is something about losing ice (besides sea level rise) that could create a bad feedback for future climate change.

(I'll comment on nuclear at some point.)

We aren't actually losing ice. Glaciers are melting at the same time new ice is forming. This has been documented and led to some verbal gymnastics from NASA et al. To keep the narrative going. *this isn't a political statement*. I'm an avid reader and researcher of things.

[Rekdiver]

But…we are losing ice

[NattyBumppo'sRevenge]

But…we are losing ice

Losing ice in cups would be catastrophic.

[Mjohn1988]

I believe that “property” would be waters high heat capacity.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Remember the question: What is something about losing ice (besides sea level rise) that could create a bad feedback for future climate change.

(I'll comment on nuclear at some point.)

We aren't actually losing ice. Glaciers are melting at the same time new ice is forming. This has been documented and led to some verbal gymnastics from NASA et al. To keep the narrative going. *this isn't a political statement*. I'm an avid reader and researcher of things.

Sources of this information. This is news to me.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I believe that “property” would be waters high heat capacity.

By what factor is liquid water higher than most metals? (There is a range for metals but many metals have values that sorta group together a bit.)

[appstatealum]

Remember the question: What is something about losing ice (besides sea level rise) that could create a bad feedback for future climate change.

(I'll comment on nuclear at some point.)

We aren't actually losing ice. Glaciers are melting at the same time new ice is forming. This has been documented and led to some verbal gymnastics from NASA et al. To keep the narrative going. *this isn't a political statement*. I'm an avid reader and researcher of things.

Sources of this information. This is news to me.

As with most things in today's political/agenda driven landscape, you have to piece together information from.resources as everyone has their own agenda, truth laying somewhere in the middle. Here are a few articles

Antarctic ice is growing, yet the article tried to speculate doom and gloom. I dont get why it has to be biased.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/05/ ... -ice-sheet

This is the sea ice tracking site. Overall Levels are higher than in 2012 (following same seasonal cycles), albeit still lower than 20+ years ago. But this trend is opposite what the last 40 years have predicted and supports more of a "the earth/nature regulates itself" position of many scientists. Again, it's all speculation from whatever side you are on. Facts are, ice levels are higher today than in 2012
Sea Ice Today https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today

This site discusses how antarctic ice grew 1% per decade from 1979-2014 and levels remain within the standard deviation of original measurements. Again, doesn't warrant the doom and gloom we often hear.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world ... -antarctic

Here is more info on it as it continues to baffle scientists
https://eos.org/science-updates/new-per ... ic-sea-ice

I'm a formal researcher, albeit for the mental health field, but I'm an avid reader of history and alot of the issues society likes to be polarized over. I take a very unbiased position on everything and let the facts and reality dictate my position. Science, unfortunately, is so highly influenced by money/special interest, even in the mental health field, and I uave to sift through the headlines and highly speculative group think to narrow down what's happening and what isn't happening. The craziest thing about science is 99% of science is based on speculative schemas. If the schema is in fact untrue, which over history has happened many times, than all the science based on the schema is in question. Whether right or wrong, we should always be willing to accept the idea that our preferred schema could be wrong as much as it could be right. It takes years of mental/verbal gymnastics for scientists to shift positions on schemas that new data starts putting into question. I always find it just as fascinating as the data itself. People devote their lives and beliefs to things that could be proven incorrect overtime, so obviously it's hard to just turn heel even when presented with contradictory information. I think that was your motivation behind posting this topic, and I'm all for it as long as everyone keeps it kosher and open-minded for quality discussion.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

Remember the question: What is something about losing ice (besides sea level rise) that could create a bad feedback for future climate change.

(I'll comment on nuclear at some point.)

We aren't actually losing ice. Glaciers are melting at the same time new ice is forming. This has been documented and led to some verbal gymnastics from NASA et al. To keep the narrative going. *this isn't a political statement*. I'm an avid reader and researcher of things.

Sources of this information. This is news to me.

As with most things in today's political/agenda driven landscape, you have to piece together information from.resources as everyone has their own agenda, truth laying somewhere in the middle. Here are a few articles

Antarctic ice is growing, yet the article tried to speculate doom and gloom. I dont get why it has to be biased.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/05/ ... -ice-sheet

This is the sea ice tracking site. Overall Levels are higher than in 2012 (following same seasonal cycles), albeit still lower than 20+ years ago. But this trend is opposite what the last 40 years have predicted and supports more of a "the earth/nature regulates itself" position of many scientists. Again, it's all speculation from whatever side you are on. Facts are, ice levels are higher today than in 2012
Sea Ice Today https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today

This site discusses how antarctic ice grew 1% per decade from 1979-2014 and levels remain within the standard deviation of original measurements. Again, doesn't warrant the doom and gloom we often hear.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world ... -antarctic

Here is more info on it as it continues to baffle scientists
https://eos.org/science-updates/new-per ... ic-sea-ice

I'm a formal researcher, albeit for the mental health field, but I'm an avid reader of history and alot of the issues society likes to be polarized over. I take a very unbiased position on everything and let the facts and reality dictate my position. Science, unfortunately, is so highly influenced by money/special interest, even in the mental health field, and I uave to sift through the headlines and highly speculative group think to narrow down what's happening and what isn't happening. The craziest thing about science is 99% of science is based on speculative schemas. If the schema is in fact untrue, which over history has happened many times, than all the science based on the schema is in question. Whether right or wrong, we should always be willing to accept the idea that our preferred schema could be wrong as much as it could be right. It takes years of mental/verbal gymnastics for scientists to shift positions on schemas that new data starts putting into question. I always find it just as fascinating as the data itself. People devote their lives and beliefs to things that could be proven incorrect overtime, so obviously it's hard to just turn heel even when presented with contradictory information. I think that was your motivation behind posting this topic, and I'm all for it as long as everyone keeps it kosher and open-minded for quality discussion.

Science as a entity has made mistakes but it tends to be self-correcting overall. And yes human desires and less than ideal motivations can get in the way of science. However we are not talking about a couple science folks with an axe to grind. We are talking about thousands of sciencists studying the world over.

You do toss out some older data and it is true that some areas are gaining ice in Antarctica. But where the ice is being lost, it seems to be a much bigger loss that the much smaller amounts being gained. Overall, there is a huge net loss of ice.

Here is some more data from NASA as wel. https://science.nasa.gov/resource/video ... 2002-2023/

It seems to show a clear loss of ice overall in Antarctica.

The Arctic Ocean changes are averaging over 12% less ice per decade, when tracking minimum ice coverage since 1980 https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ar ... intent=121

Greenland's Ice Sheet has lost more than originally thought, and it seems no one was thinking it gained ice. Here is the opening sentance of the article. "A new, comprehensive analysis of satellite data finds that majority of glaciers on the landmass have retreated significantly."
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/climate-chan ... estimated/

Himalayan Mountains are losing ice based on this article from Nature from a few years ago. This ice loss is likely multivariable thatn other areas around the world and the ice amounts are influenced by monsoon events. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-03805-8

The Alps have lost a lot of ice. This link has some French labeled graphs but the text is in English and there is the famous picture of the retreating glacier from 1890 and 2015. It is one of those sliding pictures. https://creamontblanc.org/en/climate-ch ... acts-alps/

I am having a hard time finding where ice is growing in an area large enough to offset what is being lost in so many other areas.