h a l f b a k e r yAsk your doctor if the Halfbakery is right for you.
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,
|
|
|
Tunnels are Baked and WKTE.
Snow sheds and wind sheds are Baked and WKTE.
But very few roads are simply "roofed over". The Nimitz Freeway (Cypress structure), a double-deck freeway in the Bay area, suffered considerably in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, but that's not the idea here - the roof
would be fairly lightweight, not another roadway.
Consider the advantages:
1. Water can be captured and routed to disposal and storage facilities as required. This could be a major source of "fresh" water in some geographies. The roads are rarely wet, reducing accidents. Snow is likewise kept off the driving surface.
2. The extra "ground area" can be used for parkland, cycleways, walkways, solar panels, or horticulture.
3. Windscreen wipers will only need occasional replacement.
4. In the event of an accident, sprinkler systems integrated into the underside of the "roof" can automatically extinguish any fire, or at least prevent its spread.
5. No need for lamp-posts or power poles - the side supports and roof provide substantial supports, ready to use.
6. Maintenance becomes largely an indoor job*, although it may still involve heavy lifting.
7. With reduced exposure to water, salt, grit and freeze-thaw cycles in some geographies, road surfaces will last longer.
8. Driver distraction will be reduced.
<later>
9. In areas prone to high winds, "siding" will be provided to greatly reduce wind-blown precipitation, and incidentally reduce the gust forces on high-sided vehicles.
10. The system may not be practical in earthquake zones or regions prone to hurricanes, but in other areas where volcanic activity is a risk, the design may provide comparatively sheltered evacuation routes or shelter from falling ash, if sufficiently strongly constructed.
*Apart, that is, from maintaining the roof itself
Rooved roads
https://www.alamy.c...%26flip%3d0%26pl%3d
In Europe (& other places), to protect from snow. [neutrinos_shadow, Oct 07 2020]
Solar panels over roads
https://www.pv-maga...taics-for-highways/
They seem to be (at least partly) transparent... [neutrinos_shadow, Oct 07 2020]
NASA report on man made global warming
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
[xenzag, Oct 08 2020]
CO2 due to volcanoes
https://www.science...all-country-s-other
[xaviergisz, Oct 13 2020]
[link]
|
| |
// they'll have to be kinda substantial // |
|
| |
Depends what the local authorities will pay up for. |
|
| |
If it's a solar farm, then the panels themselves will form most of the "roof" and the support can be fairly lightweight. |
|
| |
If it's for pedestrians, then again the loading isn't that high; for cyclists, not much more, although there need to be occasional random spring-loaded trapdoors to cause them to plummet onto the roadway below, where they get mashed by vehicles and then sued because cyclists aren't permitted on the covered roadway. |
|
| |
Parkland or gardens will be quite heavy, and yes, the roof will need to be quite substantial. |
|
| |
Sufficiently long, obstruction-free lengths can be used as runways for light aircraft. |
|
| |
It's not envisaged that the sides will be enclosed more than is needed to keep most of the precipitation out. In areas where strong winds drive rain or snow under the cover, then yes, some side protection will be needed. It can be translucent, to minimise the need for additional lighting. |
|
| |
// 4. In the event of an accident, sprinkler systems integrated into the underside of the "roof" can automatically extinguish any fire, or at least prevent its spread. // |
|
| |
... and can be in action long before the emergency services arrive on the scene. |
|
| |
The lighting bill will at least double. It would provide an
opportunity for some at-source pollution capture/filtering. |
|
| |
I can't believe no one else has spotted the massive,
overwhelming benefit to this idea. Think about it -
at what other occasion in your life have you driven
recklessly underneath a lightweight roof-like
structure? That's right! - Dodgems! |
|
| |
Shhhhh ... don't mention that until they're built, [hip] ... |
|
| |
[8th] but while they're being built, what will you
tell people the electrical grid on the ceiling is for?
- and also why you're fitting electrical pick-up poles
to everyone's cars? |
|
| |
"We're including a system for charging electric and hybrid vehicles, using green, renewable energy"... |
|
| |
People cheerfully swallow the propaganda about climate change, so it's a cert they'll believe that. |
|
| |
The word "retard" has been changed to that of the
new term "Trumptard" and has now become anyone
who still denies the reality of global warming. As
an already confirmed pre existing "Trumptard", you
fit the new descriptor to perfection. You wanted
me to say that, so now that I've made you happy,
you should say thanks in public instead of sending
your usual fawning emails. They have no effect on
me. |
|
| |
We don't deny global warming at all. Data shows a current upward trend. |
|
| |
In the past there were downward trends. Not long ago, in geologic terms, the planet was in an ice age. What caused that ? Please provide a valid, verifiable mathematical model. Show your working. |
|
| |
We have yet to see proof - in the form of a rigorous mathematical model - that can predict the behaviour of the system. There are guesses and assumptions made on the basis of a very small data set. That's not proof. |
|
| |
Where is the proof ? Not evidence. Not "projections". An actual algebraic analytical proof, the same sort of thing that's available for aerodynamics, or some forms of geophysics. Cause and effect. |
|
| |
That's the type of 'logic' that denies the existence
of gravity in the belief that there are people out
there somewhere who won't hit the ground if they
jump off a tall building on the basis of having a
statistically unprovable immunity to gravity. It's
the perfect example Trumptard, Qanon logic. |
|
| |
...as the sea levels rise and the forests burn, [8th]
will be shaking his fist and saying "But you can't
*prove* this is happening!"... |
|
| |
Not only is that susceptible to proof, but if you measure the wind speed and direction, it's possible to predict what the fire will burn next and how soon that will happen. |
|
| |
There is a clear chain of causation between melting polar ice and rising sea levels. |
|
| |
What causes the rise in global average temperatures ? Is it purely anthropogenic ? If not - and there are many other causes, including volcanism and solar behaviour - then what proportion is anthropogenic ? |
|
| |
An answer to within 10% will be fine. What proportion of the temperature rise is anthropogenic, and what proportion can be definitely attributed to non-anthropogenic causes ? |
|
| |
Write on both sides of the paper. Your time starts now. |
|
| |
//Write on both sides of the paper// |
|
| |
Ah yes; the old "Möbius answer sheet" ploy. |
|
| |
Topological mathematicians are the funniest to watch. Some of them actually die of exhaustion and frustration before the end of the exam. |
|
| |
Cruel, but very entertaining. |
|
| |
I’ll trust NASA’s verdict on the cause of global
warming [link]. 8th’s belief that they faked the
moon landings probably makes him also discount
their verification of man made global warming. |
|
| |
There's a lot of data but they are all from the very, very recent past (in geological terms). The long term data are very sparse, and mostly indirect. |
|
| |
The acid test is an accurate, consistent, repeatable predictive model. NASA can predict the position of your moon well enough to send humans there, have them land, then return. Can they predict average daily temperatures over a 30 day window for a given area of land or ocean, one year in advance ? No, not yet... |
|
| |
//Not long ago, in geologic terms, the planet was in an
ice age. What caused that?// |
|
| |
Even weirder, the sahara desert didn't exist while they
were knocking Stonehenge together what the hell is going
on there? |
|
| |
//lot of data but they are all from the very, very recent
past// |
|
| |
Not even in geological timescales, there are trees 40x
older than reasonably accurate temperature records. And
on temperature, measuring that quantitatively is
surprisingly tricky. |
|
| |
We have incubators for cells, cells like 37C, some young
keener decided to check the displayed temp with a real
thermometer, they were all 2C low... cue panic. Were
they ALL identically 2C low... seems odd, maybe the
thermometer is off. Cue 0C/100C calibrations with pure
water, everything good to within 0.2C both ends... hmm.
Order 3 more expensive thermometers from proper
science company, all check out the same at 0C/100C but
have a 1.2C spread at 37C. Now we wish we'd never
bothered with anything. The point is, how reliable are
150, 100, 50 year old measurement all through the scale?
Sounds trivial, but when you're arguing about decimal
points of degrees... |
|
| |
Then there's the area surveyed, it's limited now, but 150
years ago accurate measurements were probably
restricted to just outside the Royal Institute & Bob the
thermometer maker's workshop. |
|
| |
A bit more than that; but not much. |
|
| |
When the Tay Bridge blew down in 1879, there were just two - TWO - wind speed/pressure gauges in the entire UK, which was one of the most advanced and industrialised nations on the planet. |
|
| |
Modern meteorology didn't really begin begin until WW1, when it became an important factor in aviation and gas attacks. |
|
| |
And that's the whole point; the direct data set, such as it is, covers only about 150 years. The planet is billions of years old and has experienced gigantic climatic swings, some relatively recent. |
|
| |
Where is the proof that the temperature rise is NOT at least partially due to entirely natural processes, which have operated in a chaotic way for millions of years ? |
|
| |
Where is the proof that there's not a giant cabbage growing in the centre of the earth? No one could prove to you that global warming is man made. Your mind is shut. |
|
| |
// Where is the proof that there's not a giant cabbage growing in the centre of the earth? // |
|
| |
The structure of the planet is inferred by seismology and the way shock waves (principally from earthquakes, the only phenomenon capable of generating waves of sufficient intensity) are refracted by materials of different densities. By using a network of seismological instrumentation using a synchronised timebase, the different arrival times of the waves reveal the inner structure, analogous to ultrasonic tomography. |
|
| |
If there was a giant cabbage, then the density figures for the core would be of the order of 1000 - 2000 kg/m3. They are much higher, consistent with a dense metallic material. Combined with the observed magnetic field, and the high temperature of the lavas exuded at the surface, this leads to the deduction that the core is hotter than the surface and that it is most likely molten nickel-iron. |
|
| |
Also, volcanoes don't smell of cabbage*. |
|
| |
Thus the hypothesis that there is a giant cabbage at the planetary core is not supported by either evidence or theory. You are, however, at perfect liberty to download the seismological data and write a paper expounding your "central cabbage" theory. It is probably unlikely to convince geophysicists. |
|
| |
// No one could prove to you that global warming is man made. // |
|
| |
On the contrary. Show us an academically rigorous mathematical model. Not guesswork, or extrapolation, or "some scientists think" ... actual numbers, equations, based on verifiable data. |
|
| |
The first rule of science is "Question EVERYTHING". Methodology must be published, and other researchers should - from that methodology and data - be able to replicate the results. |
|
| |
All we want is that you demonstrate, by such a methodology, that global warming is overwhelmingly an anthropogenic phenomenon. Why is that so much to ask ? |
|
| |
*Actually, volcanoes can be very smelly things, and may indeed emit cabbage-like odours from time to time, but no volcanoes have yet been observed that smell consistently of brassica and nothing else. This does not exclude the possibility of a cabbage volcano; finding such a structure would be a "black swan" event. |
|
| |
Hitler proposed something similar for the Autobahn but to
thwart aerial attack while troops and equipment
maneuvered around. Tanks would have torn up the roads and
they moved fine on dirt so the idea was abandoned. |
|
| |
But you're proposing this for a much different reason so this
is NOT just what Hitler would have said. |
|
| |
Just curious, wondering what the longest stretch of time
this site has gone WITHOUT Hitler being mentioned? |
|
| |
When it was less peppered with contentious
debaters, years, probably. |
|
| |
We have had great big events in history, like your
favorite topical volcanoes, which we've been able to
dig up some correlative data on, I believe. The
volcanoes could act as a sort of calibration check, I
propose. That that data shows that they went off in
their majorly disruptive way, and that the temps
more-or-less recovered goes to validate the data
collection method in precision and date. That the
continuance of that temp data to our modern day
still shows a hockey stick makes me rather
suspicious. If volcanoes don't move the needle that
wildly, and they are rather huge climatic events, then
what else is out there to do so, besides, well, us? |
|
| |
It is well known that NASA faked the moon landings from their studio on Mars. |
|
| |
// what else is out there to do so, besides, well, us? // |
|
| |
In order of increasing probability: |
|
| |
There is considerable, if patchy, evidence that the Milankovitch cycles have substantial forcing effects on climate, though there is nowhere near a good enough understanding of these extremely complex - but non-chaotic - phenomena to make an accurate prediction of their impact over relatively short geologic timescales. |
|
| |
Very large amounts of carbon are released into the environment by destabilization of deep-ocean methane clathrates caused by tectonic activity, either at subduction zones or along the mid ocean spreading centres; think of Lake Nios, but on an truly oceanic scale. Because of the low temperature and extremely high pressures, there are no "bubbles" and as the methane diffuses upwards into ever larger volumes, it remains in solution. The effect is known to exist and the amounts of methane - a notable greenhouse gas are - staggering, but not yet even partially quantified, other than "very, very big". |
|
| |
Even modestly sized submarine landslides can have the same effect, but are rarely if ever observed, even indirectly. |
|
| |
Gases diffuse up from the upper mantle along the spreading centres, as a cold version of "black smokers". These are SO2 and CO2 rather than methane, the spreading centres and associated rifting and faults extend for thousands of kilometres, and since they are extremely inaccessible there has been very little direct study. Again, the effects are "huge, but unquantified". |
|
| |
4. The Earth is slowly digesting the Giant Cabbage which is at its core. This is causing the Earth to fart, albeit relatively quietly, emitting greenhouse gases and raising the temperature. The indigestion is also making the Earth feel poorly and giving it a slight fever, causing it to sweat. A good dose of Milk of Magnesia and a lie down in a darkened star system for a few millennia and it will soon be feeling better. |
|
| |
Or any combination of 1, 2 and 3; obviously if the Cabbage theory (4) is correct, it is sufficient of itself to account for the observed phenomena. |
|
| |
Hmm... it's interesting that these "other" causes seemed to
start in perfect sync with the Industrial Revolution...
Yes, the earth has been this warm before. Yes, there are
other factors occurring too. But the RATE of temperature
change is the "different to all known previous data" part. |
|
| |
... except the ability to measure and record temperature data only starts just prior - or rather, is contingent upon - the Industrial Revolution, or rather, the Renaissance that immediately preceded it ... |
|
| |
Everything before then had to be inferred from secondary sources and the data set is tiny. |
|
| |
Nuclear radiation existed before the invention of silver emulsion photographic plates, electroscopes, and the Geiger counter. It just wasn't measured or detected, indeed there was little or no observational evidence that it existed - just speculation. Things exist whether they're measured or not. If a tree falls in a forest, and hits a mime and kills them, does anyone care ? |
|
| |
So, all of a sudden - VERY sudden, only four human lifetimes (70 years x 4 = 280, therefore back to 1740) - you can actually measure temperature. And the trend is upwards, steeply upwards. |
|
| |
On a planet that's three billion or more years old, and where climatic cycles operate over a million year scale ? Where only a few tens of thousands of years ago, in the era of "modern" humans, there was an ice age, and substantially lower sea levels ? |
|
| |
You have evidence; yes. You can demonstrate a correlation; yes. But there is no mathematical proof, no reliable, consistent model that excludes all other reasonable possibilities. |
|
| |
There are good, consistent, above all useful mathematical models for all sorts of complex phenomena; the hydrodynamics of nuclear fusion, the gas and energy flows in a turbine engine, tidal movements in estuaries. |
|
| |
Even Occam's Razor, in Sherlock's form, is applicable; "When you have eliminated all other possibilities, whatever remains, however improbable, must be correct. " Except the other possibilities haven't been ruled out, and a lot of research is going into merely proving that one particular theory is right, instead of investigating all the possibilities to eliminate them as causes. That's bad science. |
|
| |
We do not "deny climate change". Climate is a vast, dynamic. chaotic system. Change is fundamental to its nature. It changes all the time, from the microscopic to the macroscopic scales. |
|
| |
We do not "deny global warming". We do not dispute that over the very brief (geologically) period for which data are available, the average temperature trend is upward. |
|
| |
But the connection between "the average temperature is rising" and "Humans are causing the temperature to rise" is not proven. There is evidence but no proof. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law. No prosecuting attorney who valued their reputation would dare take the case. |
|
| |
We will be easily convinced by a rigorous mathematical model that consistently and reproducibly predicts the observed phenomena. Is that so much to ask for ? |
|
| |
//the ability to measure and record temperature data
only starts just prior// |
|
| |
//before then had to be inferred from secondary sources
and the data set is tiny// |
|
| |
Not entirely unlike sea levels. We have plenty of evidence
for sea levels in the past, you can look at wave wear
patterns in rocks, then, with a lot of checking to make
sure the rock hasn't moved, a lot more checking to figure
out the age of the rocks, you can have a stab at what the
sea level was in your sample region. |
|
| |
It gets harder as you go back, carbon dating only goes so
far so your time resolution degrades from years, to
centuries to millennia. But you can pull together data
from all over the world and narrow it down a little. |
|
| |
Begining a few hundreds of years ago, we get data with a
resolution of hours, because some bright sparks put
marked sticks in the harbors, so we pick up tides -
cyclical data on top of the mean sea level. Only it's more
complex than that, we have nested cycles from hours to
years because of interference between moon/sun/Earth
orbits. Since the 80's or so, we can resolve the level with
a time resolution of seconds. We see finer
oscillatory/cyclical data: waves. |
|
| |
Ask any seasoned mariner in the past, and they'll talk
(endlessly, probably) about freak waves. Scientists did
their models, they couldn't exist - until we had sensors on
every oil rig and there they were. Now we have cycles in
cycles in cycles etc., we measure many layers of tides,
with waves
superimposed on top & freak waves as a slower cycle
within those. |
|
| |
So, look at your wave-washed rock from 25,000 years ago,
you can get an idea of the mean sea level at that point,
but no idea that a freak wave during a spring tide
smashed all the trees 50m up the shore. Same with lots
of other stuff. How many Pacific typhoons were we
measuring in 1920? By that metric, there's been a
terrifying uptick in monster Pacific storms since 1900.
Except we don't even have an indirect proxy for that. |
|
| |
//The Nimitz Freeway (Cypress structure), a
double-deck freeway in the Bay area, suffered
considerably in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake// |
|
| |
I was working on a project at Fantasy Records
recording studios and
driving on that freeway every day right before it
collapsed. (a recording
studio was a place where people used to record
music) I'd comment as we drove over it that this
thing would not survive in an earthquake because
it felt
like riding on a roller coaster. Freeways are
supposed to be flat, not sagging like a series of
hammocks and if you were going fast enough, you'd
be bouncing up and down like you were skiing on
snow moguls. I might have been on it when it
collapsed but I was taking a break to watch the
World Series that day. That was one time I wasn't
happy about being right about something. Killed a
bunch of people. |
|
| |
They didn't properly re-enforce it. For one thing,
the rebar wasn't used correctly. They had vertical
bundles in the concrete columns but didn't wrap
them up so they just flayed out when pressure hit
from above. |
|
| |
My uncle was lead engineer on the Golden Gate
Bridge for many years, he has a bridge named after
him in Marin County. I hope I'm not right a second
time about Oakland's crappy freeway building
skills, but after talking to him about the new span
on the Bay Bridge that replaced the one that
collapsed during that same earthquake, well, let's
just say what he said about its construction made
me take other bridges when I have a choice.
Supposedly it's got some real disaster elements
built into it. |
|
| |
And to make it worse, after that, Bill Wattenberg
said the same thing my uncle did. He's the guy who
got his PHD in his teens, was a professor at UC
Berkley in his 20s, worked on the guidance
computer for the Apollo program then designed
hydrogen bombs under the tutelage of Edwin
Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb so he's pretty
smart. These two guys say that bridge wasn't built
properly I'm taking their word for it. |
|
| |
// But the connection between "the average
temperature is rising" and "Humans are causing the
temperature to rise" is not proven. There is evidence
but no proof. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
No prosecuting attorney who valued their reputation
would dare take the case.// |
|
| |
I think the best way to approach this is to strip it
back to a basic physics question: |
|
| |
A planet with radius 6,370km has an atmosphere
with a total mass of 5.15×10^18 kg. The planet is
radiated by a nearby star at a maximum normal
surface irradiance at approximately 1000 W /m^2. |
|
| |
The atmosphere initially comprises 0.03% CO2. The
atmosphere ultimately comprises 0.06% CO2. |
|
| |
What is the change in average equilibrium
temperature of the planet? |
|
| |
Is it perfect? No. Is it a decent starting point for
understanding? Yes. |
|
| |
Instead of putting the roof over the road, you could have a small roof on each vehicle. There would be glass panels around the edge for the driver to see out of. This would save a lot of materials. |
|
| |
Hmm, that's an interesting concept ... |
|
| |
// The atmosphere initially comprises 0.03% CO2. The atmosphere ultimately comprises 0.06% CO2. // |
|
| |
What is the cause of that increase ? Has it been unequivocally identified ? |
|
| |
In geologic history, the atmospheric composition has varied enormously; the Carboniferous era is a case in point. What caused this ? |
|
| |
What was the atmospheric composition during the last two ice ages ? What caused the composition to change ? |
|
| |
// What is the change in average equilibrium temperature of the planet? // |
|
| |
Opinions vary; there is no reliable, consistent predictive model. Experts disagree. |
|
| |
//Experts disagree// - this makes it sound like
experts are evenly spread across the whole spectrum
of opinion on this argument, which is not the case. |
|
| |
It is reasonable to assume that there will be a Normal (Gaussian) distribution, and that a mean and a standard deviation can be calculated. |
|
| |
But they remain "estimates" and "projections" based on a very limited data set, and they can't even make a consistent forecast for the situation in one year's time. If you look back at the climatological predictions over the last decade, they're way off - not by orders of magnitude, but still too big a scatter to be useful. You need to look back as well as forward and see how well they did; the answer is, "badly". But nobody seems to ask those questions ... |
|
| |
// // What is the change in average equilibrium
temperature of the planet? // |
|
| |
Opinions vary; there is no reliable, consistent
predictive model. Experts disagree.// |
|
| |
For the basic physics question posed there is no
disagreement. This is a good "first order"
approximation. The answer is 2°C. |
|
| |
This is a good starting point because it is
completely independent of complicating factors
about the validity of temperature data, source of
CO2, etc. |
|
| |
Of course it becomes more complicated when
taking into account clouds, methane, glaciers etc.
The answer becomes about 2.5°C ± 1.5°C. |
|
| |
As you have noted there is currently a warming
trend. This warming trend seems to approximately
align with the predicted temperature increase due to
CO2. The simplest explanation of this alignment is
that there is a direct causal link. |
|
| |
Yes, but where is the CO2 coming from ? Is it all anthropogenic ? What about all the countervailing processes ? |
|
| |
// Yes, but where is the CO2 coming from ? Is it all
anthropogenic ?// |
|
| |
"Scientists estimate that volcanoes worldwide emit,
on average, about 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per
day (only about 2% of the amount that human
activity causes)" |
|
| |
//What about all the countervailing processes ?// |
|
| |
There might be countervailing processes. For
example it might be that without human CO2
production the Earth would currently be going into
an ice age. But it is easy to get lost in 'what-about-
isms'. |
|
| |
Yes, but that's the subaerial volcanoes. It doesn't include the deep-ocean sources that are unquantified but known to be staggeringly big, only recently discovered, and still requiring major research. |
|
| |
And there's that word "estimate" again ... |
|
| |
If the oceanic sources emitted much more, then
they would be vastly more acidic than they had
been recently, and you wouldn’t have coral reefs
suddenly protesting the increase in CO2 that they
have; they’d barely notice the change. |
|
| |