/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14339727

465KiB, 500x500, Goku.gif

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 05:57:44 2022 No.14339727 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

Give it to me straight.
How badly will climate change hurt us in the coming 100 years if things continue the way that it is?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:06:34 No.14341133 Report

Quoted By: >>14341203 >>14342202

>>14341123
Of course they're going to be violent. Look at the cumulative emissions of the countries those migrants are coming from and compare them to the countries they'll be going to. I'd be pretty pissed if someone burned my house down too, even if they let me sleep on their couch for a week.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:10:37 No.14341144 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341077
>Show which term of my equation is incorrect
Your equations are fine, your assumption that the volume of submerged ice can be greater than the volume of water from the ice above and below the water is wrong. The only way this can occur is if something is pushing down on the ice above the water so that it displaces more than it should. Get it yet? Or do you need your ass to get kicked a few more times?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:11:46 No.14341150 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341132
It only decreases because of vaporation. If you put a lid on it, it'll stay the same

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:13:17 No.14341155 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341132
Post a video of your experiment and I'll explain where your experimental error is coming from. I suspect an ID-10-T error, but I'll need to see your experiment to confirm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:13:53 No.14341157 Report

Quoted By:

>>14340655
>>I wrote a bunch of meaningless equations so I know more than scientists who actually do research with meaningful math

Elaborate.
Can you point out what part of those ecuations is wrong, and present your "meaningful" math?.
Let's see those ecuations.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO PXL_20220327_171031438.jpg, 852KiB, 1944x2592

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:15:23 No.14341161 Report

Quoted By: >>14341183

>>14341132
Oh shit, he's right! As the ice melted the water level dropped like a lot. I know there's nothing that could be wrong with my experiment because I used ice, water, and a cup!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:17:22 No.14341165 Report

Quoted By: >>14341174 >>14341202

>>14341132
>If, however, you have ice that is completely submerged
Yes. IF. But ice floats on water unless you push it down

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:19:39 No.14341174 Report

Quoted By: >>14341202

>>14341165
He thinks ice under water isn't floating. He misses that it's pushing up on the ice above it, so it's no different from a giant ice cube.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:23:57 No.14341183 Report

Quoted By: >>14341195

>>14341161
The majority of glaciers on the planet are on land, that being Greenland.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 20220327_132134.jpg, 3MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:25:42 No.14341192 Report

Quoted By: >>14341279

>>14341132
Here we go, let's see if OP gets a Nobel Prize for disproving bouyancy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:25:57 No.14341195 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341183
My post is satirical. I didn't think I needed to end my post with *sarcasm* like this is Facebook in the early 2000's.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:27:23 No.14341198 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341132
>Find some realistic numbers, plug it into my formula, and notice you're wrong.
Are you just trying to get us to do a literal homework problem for you? Like LITERALLY literally a homework problem you've been assigned?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:27:51 No.14341202 Report

Quoted By: >>14341213 >>14341224 >>14341229

>>14341165
>>14341174
When you have enough ice, then a small amount of ice is above the water at the rim, and a small amount of ice is pressed against the bottom of the cup. The submerged ice isn't floating. Do this yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:28:09 No.14341203 Report

Quoted By: >>14341212

>>14341133
Nothings going to happen

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:30:13 No.14341212 Report

Quoted By: >>14341289

>>14341203
As in climate conditions won't make certain countries uninhabitable, or nobody will migrate as a result, or none of the migrants will be violent towards the people who displaced them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:30:50 No.14341213 Report

Quoted By: >>14341221

>>14341202
So you're modelling sea ice that's also supported by the sea floor? Not only are you modelling the wrong thing, your model is wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:32:00 No.14341221 Report

Quoted By: >>14341223

>>14341213
>Not only are you modelling the wrong thing, your model is wrong.
So I'd make a fantastic Climatologist, don't you think? :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:32:17 No.14341223 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341221
No

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:32:32 No.14341224 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341202
>When you have enough ice, then a small amount of ice is above the water at the rim
There's always ice above the water, because it floats. Wow, you're dumb.

>and a small amount of ice is pressed against the bottom of the cup.
Then the water level would INCREASE because the bottom of the cup is pushing more ice above the water than would be floating above it. This is basically the same as when land ice melts. You just disproved your argument.

>The submerged ice isn't floating.
Of course it is. The only ice that isn't floating is the ice being pushed above the water by the bottom of the cup.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:33:10 No.14341229 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341202
And this is relevant to glaciers in oceans melting because...?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 20220327_134543.jpg, 3MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:47:04 No.14341279 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341132
>>14341192
And OP is proven wrong. The water level increased and is already bulging out of the cup.

/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:49:44 No.14341288 Report

Quoted By: >>14341290

literally nothing, climate models have shown no predicative power, aka they are not useful for science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:50:04 No.14341289 Report

Quoted By: >>14341316 >>14341318

>>14341212
There wont be any climate change, beyond the usual weather variations and long term change on a scale of millennia.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:50:54 No.14341290 Report

Quoted By: >>14341331

>>14341288
Why are you lying?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:52:19 No.14341294 Report

Quoted By: >>14341302

>>14340391
Stick a 5 meter tall ice rod into a cup and melt it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:54:27 No.14341302 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341294
Even better, just put ice into a cup with no water and let it melt. Wow, amazing, the water level increased even though OP said it would decrease if ice was touching the bottom of the cup! He thinks negative water can happen.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO FD2FKsgUUAE13gt.jpg, 197KiB, 1841x1150

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:58:32 No.14341316 Report

Quoted By: >>14341336 >>14341408

>>14341289
It's already occurred. Current warming is global and occurring 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO download.png, 144KiB, 1696x1325

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 17:58:38 No.14341318 Report

Quoted By: >>14341336 >>14341366 >>14341408

>>14341289
Do you have anything to back that up? The global average temperature has been increasing at a rate that can't be explained by variations in solar input and the climate has already been changing as a result. The global average temperature is significantly higher than it's been in the past 200 millennia and the rate of that change is orders of magnitude higher than any warming throughout all of Earth's history. At this point you have to be ignorant of the science in order to believe that the climate isn't changing and that humans aren't responsible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 18:04:25 No.14341331 Report

Quoted By: >>14341465

>>14341290
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
did you actually read this and understand it or are you just spamming this link because you think the abstract reads well? Actual observations were innnacurate, only "implied" TCR was found to be predictative. Implied TCR is not a proven metric. You use bunk science to support your bunk science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 18:05:52 No.14341334 Report

Quoted By: >>14341479

stop this ice nonsense, floating ice will not increase sea levels, the only ice that will increase sea levels is ice that calves from a position where it supported by the earth. Ice sheets naturally calve at the edge as they grow .

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 18:06:23 No.14341336 Report

Quoted By: >>14341366 >>14341408 >>14341484 >>14341495

>>14341316
Do you have a time graph where a century takes more than 1 pixel?
>>14341318
>Do you have anything to back that up?
I dont need to prove anything. Its you making a prediction, its you who have to prove your assertions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 18:23:44 No.14341366 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341336
>Do you have a time graph where a century takes more than 1 pixel?
>>14341318

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 36m3FnquTTKXIWrk5MCaLzKYk1A7bS8Q (...).png, 496KiB, 785x863

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 18:41:47 No.14341408 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341336
>I dont need to prove anything. Its you making a prediction
I predict the sun won't come up tomorrow. I don't need to provide any evidence for this and it's equally as valid as a prediction that the sun will come up tomorrow.

>its you who have to prove your assertions
Okay

>The global average temperature has been increasing at a rate that can't be explained by variations in solar input
The picture in this post >>14341318 demonstrates this. The source is NASA.

>climate has already been changing as a result
The EPA has a fairly comprehensive page detailing how the climate has been changing here https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/weather-climate

>The global average temperature is significantly higher than it's been in the past 200 millennia
The picture in this post >>14341316 demonstrates 10% of this. Pic related is 800 millennia. Source is the World Economic Forum, who cites their sources in this article. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/earth-just-hit-a-terrifying-milestone-for-the-first-time-in-more-than-800-000-years

>the rate of that change is orders of magnitude higher than any warming throughout all of Earth's history
The source is NASA again. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 18:49:12 No.14341437 Report

Quoted By:

>>14340215
On the global scale you're correct. But when european tribes move to Palestine, their climate is changed, so they want to cool it down, because to change their genome is still more expensive (but hopefully not for long, and soon they will forget about this insane plan of theirs)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 18:59:21 No.14341465 Report

Quoted By: >>14341826

>>14341331
>did you actually read this
Yes. Did you? The paper says that most models were accurate.

>Actual observations were innnacurate
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean in this context. What observations were inaccurate?

>only "implied" TCR was found to be predictative
No, both temperature over time and TCR were accurate for most models. You didn't read the paper. Why do you keep lying about something anyone can look up? Do you do this for free?

>Implied TCR is not a proven metric.
What about it is unproven?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 19:03:58 No.14341479 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341334
>stop this ice nonsense, floating ice will not increase sea levels
Incorrect. Floating ice is often from fresh water, which is less dense than sea water. So it displaces less water than what it melts into.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20220219-003807_Chrome.jpg, 149KiB, 1080x830

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 19:05:16 No.14341484 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341336
>Do you have a time graph where a century takes more than 1 pixel?
Sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 19:07:16 No.14341495 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341336
>Its you making a prediction, its you who have to prove your assertions.
No, you made the prediction that climate change wouldn't occur, even though it already has. So you're saying you just made that up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 19:20:49 No.14341546 Report

Quoted By: >>14341723

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html

>The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed.
>The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN.
>In 2017, the park was told by the agency that the complete melting off of the glaciers was no longer expected to take place so quickly due to changes in the forecast model, Kurzmen said. But tight maintenance budgets made it impossible for the park to immediately change the signs

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 20:04:03 No.14341723 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341546
>In Switzerland, glaciers have shrunk 10% in the past five years -- an unprecedented rate in more than a century of observations, research published last year shows.
>In Iceland, researchers bid farewell to the first glacier in the country lost to climate change.
>And in June 2019, a new study revealed climate change was shrinking Himalayan glaciers twice as fast as last century.
>Recently, the glaciers had lost around 8 billion tons of water a year

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 20:38:35 No.14341826 Report

Quoted By: >>14341946

>>14341465
>I don't even know what that's supposed to mean in this context. What observations were inaccurate?

Temp over time was not accurate for "most", TCR was not used, a bullshit metric called implied TCR, which is funny because TCR is already implied to begin with. They explicitly say what they are ignoring.... I'm not explaining your paper to you.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO grl59922-fig-0002-m.jpg, 440KiB, 2128x1560

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 21:20:26 No.14341946 Report

Quoted By:

>>14341826
>Temp over time was not accurate for "most"
Another lie. Pic related Why do you repeatedly lie about things anyone can look up? Do you do this for free? Also, that doesn't even answer my question. What *observations* were inaccurate?

>TCR was not used
Please explain, how would you get the TCR of these models? Would you read the source code and derive it deductively?

>a bullshit metric called implied TCR
What about it is bullshit?

>They explicitly say what they are ignoring.
Where?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 21:49:32 No.14342023 Report

Quoted By: >>14342036

>>14341123
Could renewable energy become efficient enough to desalinate ocean water on a large scale and run it through pipelines from the coast to the desert if each area to be irrigated had a designated area to receive salt and mineral deposits?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 21:52:23 No.14342036 Report

Quoted By: >>14342133

>>14342023
Efficiency isn't the concept you're after. Look up how much energy the Earth receives from the sun. It's about 10,000 times as much as we use in all forms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 22:17:04 No.14342133 Report

Quoted By: >>14342138 >>14342175

>>14342036
>Efficiency isn't the concept you're after.
Could our means of capturing and transferring that energy become efficient enough to get the job done?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 22:19:11 No.14342138 Report

Quoted By: >>14342178

>>14342133
this is already trivial with nuclear power

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO PosterSolarSimple.jpg, 881KiB, 2500x1515

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 22:29:33 No.14342175 Report

Quoted By:

>>14342133
It's already efficient enough for that. Solar panels are 20% efficient. 20% of 10,000 is 2,000 so we have 2000 times as much power as we use in all forms if we cover the entire Earth with solar, or 1/2000th of the Earth to provide our current power needs. Pic related. Obviously you can use any renewable energy source, but all of originates from the sun, except geothermal, which is technically nuclear power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 22:30:35 No.14342178 Report

Quoted By:

>>14342138
Sure, if you had infinite money. Let me know when you find the console command for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 22:37:20 No.14342202 Report

Quoted By: >>14342257

>>14341133
They should go to China and India

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Mar 2022 22:55:18 No.14342257 Report

Quoted By:

>>14342202
A lot of them will be coming from China and India. Why do you think China is trying to make the north livable again? It's not because they care so deeply for the environment.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches