h a l f b a k e r yOh yeah? Well, eureka too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This scheme is from my (linked) answer here on the
world
building stack exchange. There is always a need for
snarky but well informed answers there. On the off
chance anyone here has a surfeit of such.
Hurricanes cool down the ocean by facilitating
evaporation. Evaporation of a liquid
carries heat away
from that liquid. We facilitate evaporation of a hot cup
of
coffee by blowing on it and so offering more air into
which
the coffee might evaporate and so cool. Hurricanes
facilitate evaporation 3 ways.
1: Warm air. Warm air can carry more moisture than cold
air.
2. Low pressure air. Hurricanes have low pressure air.
The
lower the pressure in the overlying air the easier it is for
water to evaporate off and stay there.
3. Air exchange. Just like blowing on your coffee, the air
exchange caused by the hurricane offers new air, not
saturated with water, to come in and remove evaporate
from the ocean surface.
The net effect: the circumstances of the hurricane make
a
feedforward loop which allows the hurricane to take
more
heat energy from the ocean and build in strength. This is
why hurricanes Peter out once they get over land.
But disrupting that loop - how to do it... You would need
to
prevent evaporation from the ocean surface over a large
area.
You could achieve that with an enormous oil slick. Water
cannot evaporate up through an overlying layer of oil.
In the Gulf War the Iraqis produced a 4000 square mile
oil
slick. That might be enough.
One might protest that oil is bad. For seagulls, yes, but
oil
eating microbes will rejoice. Rebuilding is also bad.
Worldbuilding Stack question
https://worldbuildi...a-humanoid-creature
[bungston, Sep 09 2017]
https://www.newscie...-by-global-warming/
[xenzag, Sep 09 2017]
Oil on the Water
https://www.newscie...ay-stop-hurricanes/
From 12 years ago... [neutrinos_shadow, Sep 10 2017]
More Oil on the Water
https://philiporton...r-heat-gulf-waters/
Another study, from 2011 [neutrinos_shadow, Sep 10 2017]
Or the oil could make it worse...
http://edition.cnn.....worries/index.html
Does the heating counteract the evaporation loss? [neutrinos_shadow, Sep 10 2017]
Campaign from last year
https://herox.com/Stop-Hurricanes
It's everywhere! [neutrinos_shadow, Sep 10 2017]
4 out of 5 doctors agree...
https://www.vox.com...mate-politics-farce
or 97% or whatever... [RayfordSteele, Sep 11 2017]
[link]
|
| |
I don't know if it would work or not, but there are probably better things to use than oil. |
|
| |
What you want is a chemical that is cheap, floats on water and doesn't dissolve, and is either biodegradeable (more so than regular oil), UV-degradeable, or evaporates slowly (over days) as a non-harmful vapour. |
|
| |
How much would you need? Well, the minimum needed is a single molecular layer. Single-molecule layers will form readily - it's a classic school experiment to estimate the size of an oil molecule. So, suppose the layer is 10nm thick (that's a fairly long molecule). And the area is, let's say, 10^6 square km, or 10^12 square metres. |
|
| |
That gives you a total volume of 10^4 cubic metres, or say 10,000 tonnes of your compound. This is a tiny fraction of what a big tanker can carry. Even if the cost were £100 per tonne, you're still looking at only £1M, which seems less than the cost of reroofing every building. |
|
| |
// What you want is a chemical that is cheap, floats on water and doesn't dissolve, and is either biodegradeable (more so than regular oil), UV-degradeable, or evaporates slowly (over days) as a non-harmful vapour. // |
|
| |
... and has a low flashpoint. |
|
| |
Also good for getting rid of all those pesky aerobically inclined fish. |
|
| |
That's not the case. A thin enough layer of a hydrophobic compound will not have any significant impact on oxygenation, even if it stayed around for long enough. |
|
| |
What if it's on fire ? It won't be there long ... |
|
| |
An environmental disaster, the deaths of thousands if not millions of humans, permanent disruption of the climate, economic collapse, global thermonuclear warfare, starvation, disease, a new dark age, cannibalism, incest, and finally a planet dominated by mutated cockroaches ? |
|
| |
So first fuck up the climate with man made global warming,
created by the overconsumption of fossile fuels, then when
that generates catastrophic hurricanes, use the same fuels
to fuck up the ocean in a feeble effort to counter the first
disaster? Am I missing something here? A better idea is to
watch from a safe distance as hurricane after hurricane
tears its way through Tumpsville, and laugh as he maintains
that it's all just a Chinese made hoax. Slow learners require
a patient teacher. |
|
| |
[xen], mon amie, in Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire hurricanes hardly ever happen. However, in other less well organized parts of the world they do happen. They have always happened, and they will continue to always happen. |
|
| |
The latest headline hurricane is said to be the most powerful in that region for the last 100 years. |
|
| |
What that means is that an even more powerful hurricane hit that area 100 years ago. |
|
| |
So the fact that they are increasing in strength due to a
rise sea water temperature in the Golf Of Mexico is a
Chinese hoax after all? That's great news. Let's all move to
Florida or Houston (what's left of it). Ps my home town
created a world beating hurricane that has never been
equaled. |
|
| |
//An environmental disaster, the deaths of thousands if not
millions of humans, permanent disruption of the climate,
economic collapse, global thermonuclear warfare,
starvation, disease, a new dark age, cannibalism, incest,
and finally a planet dominated by mutated cockroaches ?//
Will there still be non-Frankenstein GM cauliflowers to eat?
I like a bit of boiled cauliflower but not the GM type that
gives you brain maggots. |
|
| |
You'll have to ask the cockroaches ... |
|
| |
// they are increasing in strength // |
|
| |
Show us the data ...what happened before 1606, when civilization
finally reached America ? |
|
| |
Accurate records cover, at best, 300 years. The atmosphere is
dynamic and - in the narrow mathematical sense - chaotic.
Climatic cycles operate over many milennia, possibly much
longer. Solar activity is known to have a huge impact and is very
poorly understood. |
|
| |
So the temperature is rising ? 10kyears ago there was glaciation
of the Northern hemisphere ... why did that stop ? |
|
| |
Facts. Where are the facts ? Not theories, not projections based
on a minuscule data set. Actual proper evidence. |
|
| |
//So the fact that they are increasing in strength// |
|
| |
But, if you read the words between the start and end of my previous annotation, you will find that the contrary is true. |
|
| |
Every weather event is always said to be "the worst for fifty years", or "the worst for a century" or whatever. I appreciate that the French are not strong on mathematics or deductive logic, but this means that there was a worse one fifty years ago or a century ago. |
|
| |
No doubt if we're hit by an asteroid, it will be "the worst one since the end of the Cretaceous", and global warming will be cited as the cause. |
|
| |
I appreciate that the arguments can be difficult to grasp, [xen], but it's well worth stepping down off your Perrier-box briefly and making the effort. |
|
| |
//before 1606, when civilization finally reached America ?// Wait - what??? |
|
| |
It left again in 1776, and hasn't been back. |
|
| |
// the arguments can be difficult to grasp // |
|
| |
More generally, that is due to the lack of understanding by non-
scientists of the essence of scientific method. |
|
| |
There are theories that explain observed phenomena. They are
"true" but only for a given value of "true". |
|
| |
A century ago, your species largely thought that continental land
masses were fixed and immutable. On the basis of new
evidence, it was then deduced that they bob around on a layer of
molten rock like turds* in a swimming pool. Further research has
confirmed the ability of the model to predict behavior. |
|
| |
But it's a model, with a given value of "true". Until there's a
climatological model that works reliably, that explains and
preducts observed phenomena, and that is accepted by a
consensus , then it's nothing but hot air. |
|
| |
*In the case of Australia, the analogy is literally true. |
|
| |
Do we need to post the xkcd hockey stick again
that lists all said major climate shifts? |
|
| |
Ok Max in your new role as Trump advisor, we hear you're
learning to speak in Mandarin so that the Chinese can more
fully appreciate the ownership of their global warming
hoax.
Meanwhile, good luck convincing yourself that hurricanes
are decreasing in strength. Think I'll stick with the climate
scientists on that one. You're too fond of glugging down
that Agent Orange to keep your boss happy to see clearly
now. Got to keep feeding those hungry GM brain maggots!
Ha |
|
| |
"Hurricane Irma has the strongest winds of any hurricane to
form in the open Atlantic, with sustained wind speeds of
295 kph." See last link. Case closed. |
|
| |
Isn't this local versus global. No matter where on the temperature scale you are, if you turn a heater on, you will effect the locality. |
|
| |
So all that tarmac, tree loss, hot little vehicle streaks, smoke stacks, quirky energy changes and the myriad of little boxes is insignificant in a scale overview look but effects us with micro-local changes. My feeling is the weather is more choppy because of what we have done. |
|
| |
Yes, because a century ago there were lots of ships out in the open atlantic measuring windspeed. |
|
| |
Also, mon amie, for the record I should point out that my boss is a superbly agreeable chap and we see eye to eye on many things. |
|
| |
// of any hurricane to form in the open Atlantic // |
|
| |
... since accurate records began to be kept. |
|
| |
When was that exactly, [xen] ? To the nearest decade ? |
|
| |
Accurate pressure-plate anemometers were developed in the late 18th century, the more familiar cup anemometer not until 1846. Even then, their use wasn't widespread. |
|
| |
So in reality, meaningful, accurate records of wind velocities before 1850 can't exist. |
|
| |
What makes Irma so special ? The wind velocity may or may not be exceptional. In the first half of the last century, there were no hurricane-hunting aircraft; if a hurricane came, they very sensibly ran away. |
|
| |
There are more data, and those data are of better quality. The problem is that in climatological terms, they're no more that a flash photo. There are very few sporting events whose outcome can be accurately predicted by studying half a dozen frames taken halfway through. |
|
| |
It's very windy. People agree on that. When you can come along and say when and where the next hurricane but three will make landfall, and what its windspeeds will be within reasonable error bounds, then you can make a case. |
|
| |
Stating the bleedin' obvious isn't helpful, and doesn't convince anyone. |
|
| |
If there's global warming, how come everyone's summers were longer and hotter when they were children? |
|
| |
I've thought about that very perception of time speeding up
as we,get older, and have three things to offer: |
|
| |
1: perhaps we thought faster as children with many more
neuron connections doing random things before we stopped
entertaining the less useful ones.
2: As adults, each additional year is a much smaller
percentage addition to our overall lives, whereas when we
were young and impressionable, each one was a major
milestone.
3: we did nothing but smell the roses all day long. |
|
| |
You probably don't have to gather 100 years worth of data
to state that this was roughly the strongest storm in 100
years or so. Statistics become predictable like that given
enough sample data. |
|
| |
100 years is a long time to a human, but a negligible period to a planet. |
|
| |
Statistics are useful, indeed essential. As the sample window gets larger, so their accuracy increases. |
|
| |
Consider a motor race. You are provided with 10 seconds of video, after 5 laps, of a 10 lap race, in which all the cars pass the camera. |
|
| |
You could bet on the outcome based on the car positions you have seen, but you'd most probably lose. Maybe the best driver has just had a pit stop and is at the back of the pack. Maybe the current leader will have a gearbox failure. Maybe No.2 will hit a patch of oil and spin out ... |
|
| |
If, however, you have watched the first 5 laps, your ability to predict the outcome will be better. Far from perfect - but better. After 9 laps, you can probably be fairly accurate. But your observation, from your original 10 seconds of video, that the fastest car you saw that day was travelling at 200 km/h, is valid in its context, but actually meaningless - yesterday, a different class of car was racing at 300 km/h on the same circuit. Tomorrow, the highest speed might be 120 km/h. |
|
| |
But because you didn't observe that, effectively it didn't happen ... |
|
| |
I'm actually amazed that so many people on the halfbakery
whom I had previously thought of as being intelligent
beings turn out to be global warming deniers and
Trumpspeak devotees, even in the face of overwhelming
scientific evidence. It's a bit depressing and disappointing
actually, but then dumbing down is everywhere, even on
the HB. I find myself no longer amongst like minded
company, and it's time for me to walk away, for a while
anyway. |
|
| |
// global warming deniers and Trumpspeak devotees, even in the
face of overwhelming scientific evidence // |
|
| |
Global warming is an observed fact and is not disputed. |
|
| |
But is it anthropogenic ? Or are there other mechanisms at work
? If so, what are they ? |
|
| |
The evidence is not "overwhelming " because there is ,as yet,so
little of it, and no sound theoretical basis to underpin
conclusions. |
|
| |
What is it about the climate change / global warming debate that
polarises people's opinions so strongly? |
|
| |
To many people, no grey areas, differences of opinion, or even
attempts at objective analysis are permitted. Either you believe, 100%
and unfailingly, in the anthropogenic explanation, or you're a "global
warming denier and Trumpspeak devotee". Why is this? |
|
| |
Can we really learn anything useful about the climate by herding
together at the extremes and throwing insults at each other? Surely
this is the complete opposite of scientific reasoning? Surely the grey
areas and debatable bits are where all the enlightenment is to be
found? |
|
| |
"You're either with us or against us". Hmm - I'm sure I've heard that
somewhere before... |
|
| |
Is there an equivalent to Godwin's law for Trump? |
|
| |
Anyway, getting back toward the subject, in terms of CO2
release, does spreading oil over the water surface where it
will eventually get broken down release just as much CO2 as
burning it? And how much CO2 gets released in the process
of rebuilding after the hurricane? |
|
| |
I'm picturing an unmanned fleet of robust, scavenging, raft-
mounted wind turbines following the hurricane around and
leaching energy from it. A few awkward moments will occur
when the hurricane makes landfall, so the devices will be
programmed to apologize profusely when they crash through
someone's roof. |
|
| |
//What is it about the climate change / global warming debate that polarises people's opinions so strongly? // |
|
| |
I've often wondered that. It is a great pity, because it's an interesting and important question, and yet it has become a religion rather than a focus for rational enquiry. |
|
| |
I might well be wrong, and those who believe in anthropogenic climate change might well be wrong, but neither side is allowed to express any doubts over their entrenched view. |
|
| |
The phrase "climate change denier" was explicitly modelled on the phrase "holocaust denier", to demonize those who are not convinced by the evidence to date. The result, of course, is further entrenchment and polarization. Witness [xen] who is so enraged that someone can disagree about climate change that she feels she has to leave. |
|
| |
// but neither side is allowed to express any doubts over their
entrenched view. // |
|
| |
On the contrary. The "deniers" are ,quite reasonably, expressing
doubt as to the meaning of the available evidence, and are by
and large open to persuasion. |
|
| |
It's the "believers" who seem to treat it as an article of faith. |
|
| |
[Wrongfellow] had it about right. |
|
| |
Perhaps, due to the decline of religious belief in the face of
the inexorable advance of pragmatic rationalism, some humans
need something else to
believe in ? UFOs, ley lines, homeopathy ...every fad has its day. |
|
| |
// does spreading oil over the water surface where it will
eventually get broken down release just as much CO2 as burning
it? // |
|
| |
No. With crude oil, when it's digested by scavenging bacteria,
some of the carbon is retained in their structures as they grow
and divide.Lighter fractions evaporate and eventually oxidise, but
not directly into CO2. Heavier fractions hydrolyse,agglutinate,and
sink. |
|
| |
I read that those Atlantic based hurricanes start with dry
air coming from the Sahara. The dry air could become
moist if the Sahara was turned into a green area. Not sure
whether the problem would simply be shifted somewhere
else. |
|
| |
// I refuse to believe that stockings and fishnet tights exist // |
|
| |
Consider the situation where you have never physically encountered, say, a coconut. |
|
| |
You have been told that there are these objects called coconuts. You have seen photographs, and the characteristics of coconuts have been described to you. However, "coconut" remains just a word. |
|
| |
You can at this point make the choice to believe or disbelieve in coconuts. You have no evidence, only images and descriptions. It is a perfectly valid position to disbelieve in coconuts, because they are purely hypothetical. You have no proof. |
|
| |
You then travel to a Carribean island, where coconuts allegedly grow. You find a devastated landscape with wrecked buildings and extensive flooding. When you enquire about coconuts, the ragged survivors throw rocks at you. |
|
| |
You continue your travels (after seeking appropriate medical attention) to an area that has not just been devastated by a hurricane. You enquire about coconuts. You are shown tall trees, and are offered rough, brownish, ovoid objects which you are informed are coconuts; and indeed they corresponding to the photographs and descriptions. |
|
| |
At this point, your options are limited. |
|
| |
You can accept the existance of coconuts, based on personal observations. Your belief is entirely replaced by knowledge. You are justified in saying to others "Coconuts exist" and describing them. |
|
| |
You can retreat to a Solipsist position where you assert "I am imagining this. Coconuts do not exist." |
|
| |
Or you can deny that what you have seen are coconuts, but merely props produced by the special effects team just to deceive you. |
|
| |
The point is that, unless you wish to claim false memory syndrome, once you have seen an actual coconut, belief is no longer an option. The choices are only acceptance or denial. |
|
| |
Eventually, we hope to remember the point we were intending to make when we started to write this. |
|
| |
<Collective head-scratching> |
|
| |
Erm ... was it something about a tree falling in a forest and killing a mime ... ? |
|
| |
Instead of forming accusations against the majority
of
the scientific community as being sheep led by
some well-intended but mistaken climate zealots
who despite being scientists, somehow haven't
thought through the possibilities of their chosen
field
and craft, why don't we postulate a hypothesis as to
how the hockey-stick so well overlaps the
anthropogenic/industrial era in which we live. You
know, the same era that has so radically
transformed the earth in other ways? |
|
| |
That would be interesting but not necessarily useful. |
|
| |
The "end" of the "hockey stick" graph represents a few hundred years. |
|
| |
Climatic cycles operate over thousands, indeed millions, of years. |
|
| |
Maybe there's a confusion between cause and effect - is it not possible that rising temperatures may have somehow facilitated industrial development ? |
|
| |
It's the same problem with forecasting volcanic eruptions. Volcanos don't operate on human timescales. A volcano that erupts every 1000 years is, in geological terms, in continuous eruption. |
|
| |
The objection is that both sides of the argument are trying to draw conclusions from a data set that is too small and inaccurate to be useful. |
|
| |
The problem is not just with the data, but with the models. So far, every single model has been invalidated as soon as its predictions have been around long enough to be tested. |
|
| |
Each time a prediction is proven wrong, the argument is always "yes, but our models are better now". However, there is no evidence to suggest that the models are actually getting better. |
|
| |
Climates are complicated things. |
|
| |
I think some comprehension of the scale of error is
required at this point. |
|
| |
Newtonian physics is absolutely, undeniably
incorrect, but still much better than what came
before it, and stil preferred by engineers
everywhere. |
|
| |
We're not at the level of precision of quantum
theory or relativity on climate change, but we are at
least well past the alchemy stage. |
|
| |
This idea has been proposed before (out in the Real World).
See linky. |
|
| |
Thanks for coming back to the scheme at hand,
_neutrinos_. In the article they state "surfactant".
Which is not exactly oil. I get the oil idea (as stated
here!) but not the surfactant, which I think is soap. |
|
| |
//The dry air could become moist if the Sahara was
turned into a green area.// |
|
| |
Refill Mega-lake Chad? The area's in need of a more active
sailing scene. |
|
| |
//Each time a prediction is proven wrong, the argument
is always "yes, but our models are better now".// |
|
| |
In all fairness, the models are demonstrably better.
They're done in a newer version of Excel, with pastel
shading, conditional formating and all sorts. |
|
| |
//If the models don't work, they've probably missed many
kinds of CO2 batteries or other chaotic elements,
especially biological blooms.// |
|
| |
The models don't work because there aren't many working
models of anything complex and messy, we can't
satisfactorily model one heartbeat, even one action
potential.. actually even a small group of ion channels is
beyond us. That's in a system where we can directly
measure anything we want, change anything we want and
run it 1000's of times. |
|
| |
// there aren't many working models of anything complex and messy // |
|
| |
... and when the actual complex, messy thing you're studying (like economics) doesn't even work properly, then you are, as the numerical analysts say, "buggered". |
|
| |
Has the idea got to the point where we can set fire to anything yet ? If so, we will go and get one of our precious matches from the secret place that the nurses don't know about .... |
|
| |
// there aren't many working models of anything complex and messy // I've got a little voodoo doll of the Intercalary. |
|
| |