Jump to content

Itoero

Malcontent
  • Posts

    2053
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Itoero

  1. 1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    Are we? In what way? It looks to me as if we are simply dealing with issues as we've always done by putting power lines back up, burying the dead, moving, gutting your house and rebuilding, etc. Is there anything we are doing proactively, or that is unique to dealing with global warming?

    In many countries electric cars and hybrids with low CO2-emission  are on the rise and there are many plans/goals to replace current vehicles.

    The technology/knowledge  concerning solar power ( and other 'renewable energy') is improving. An anti-smog cannon has been trialled in Delhi. By spraying out water, it aims to combat the capital's toxic air.

    The production of solar energy in cities is a way to diminish our dependency to fossil fuels, and is a good way to mitigate global warming by lowering the emission of greenhouse gases. The use of solar power will decrease the smog since people will need less fossil fuel. Solar cells are more lucrative with less smog. The dependacy on fossil fuel is in a sense a vicious circle people have to break trough.

    The technology to purify ocean water used to be very expensive but the technology s now 'self-sufficient' and not so expensive by using blue energy. Global warming increases the necessity for fresh water.

    Humanity will IMO learn how to severely slow down Global warming(or turn it in Global cooling :) ) or to live with it.

    1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    burying head in the sand…

    Afbeeldingsresultaat voor burying head in sand

    On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 2:33 AM, Sensei said:

    his could be used to actively decrease Earth's temperature by placing large white-colored materials floating on e.g. oceans or barren lands.

    In Swiss they covered a glacier with high tech white blankets to protect him from the sun.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/swiss-town-glacier-blanket-180968451/

    That's a start.

  2. Nuru was prepared for the worst when she went to get screened for HIV eight years ago. After caring for her mother in Uganda, who died as a result of the virus, Nuru moved to the United Kingdom to study, and decided to take her health into her own hands. “I was ready to be told I had HIV,” she says. “I felt, ‘That’s okay. I’ve looked up to my mother’.”

    What she didn’t expect was to be diagnosed with a different viral infection altogether: hepatitis B. “The way the health worker delivered it to me, it was like, ‘It’s worse than HIV’. I was confused, I was suicidal,” says Nuru (who asked that her real name not be used for this article). “I just didn’t understand what it was because no one ever talks about hep B — they talk about HIV. That’s well researched, it’s well talked about, well documented. It’s all over the television. But hep B is not.”

    The hepatitis B virus (HBV), which spreads through blood and bodily fluids and invades liver cells, is thought to kill just under 1 million people every year around the world, mostly from cancer or scarring (cirrhosis) of the liver. HBV is less likely to be fatal than HIV, and many people who carry the virus don’t have symptoms. But because more than 250 million people live with chronic HBV infections, more than 7 times the number with HIV, its global death toll now rivals that of the more-feared virus.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07592-7

    d41586-018-07592-7_16313570.png

  3. Melting ice sheets can also increase volcanic eruptions.https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2017/11/30/why-shrinking-glaciers-could-mean-more-volcanic-eruptions

    They found 91volcanoes under the ice sheet in West-Antarctica. This the largest volcanic region on Earth. Volcanic eruptions may not reach the surface but could melt the ice from beneath and drastically destabilise it.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subglacial_volcano

    *************

    Arctic methane release is the release of methane from seas and soils in permafrost regions of the Arctic. While a long-term natural process, it is exacerbated by global warming. This results in a positive feedback effect, as methane is itself a powerful greenhouse gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

    ************

    On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 2:33 AM, Sensei said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

    "Albedo (/ælˈbiːdoʊ/) (Latin: albedo, meaning 'whiteness') is the measure of the diffuse reflection of solar radiation out of the total solar radiation received by an astronomical body (e.g. a planet like Earth). It is dimensionless and measured on a scale from 0 (corresponding to a black body that absorbs all incident radiation) to 1 (corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation)."

    (check table on Wikipedia page with albedoes of ocean, ice, snow etc.)

    Very interesting.

    The production of solar energy in cities is a way to diminish our dependency to fossil fuels, and is a good way to mitigate global warming by lowering the emission of greenhouse gases.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00014/full

  4. 20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Maybe, but evaporation is a prime suspect.

    this is what Wikipedia says: The evaporation of the warmer water reduces the mass of the water to be frozen. Evaporation is endothermic, meaning that the water mass is cooled by vapor carrying away the heat, but this alone probably does not account for the entirety of the effect.

  5.  

    22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    You've never once given me a decent reason why you think it's a good thing to have proof and evidence mean the same thing. I've asked you several times, and I get nothing but waffle. Again, for the umpteenth time, why do you think it's better if evidence and proof mean the same thing? Can you offer any support for your stance? I've explained why I think it's better that they don't. 

    I don't think that in any way.

     I base myself on what I read. There are many papers that use 'proof' as if it means evidence. Go to the Nature website and type in 'proof' in the search-engine. I've linked that before.

  6. 3 hours ago, Strange said:
    On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:19 PM, Itoero said:

     

    So one of the explanations does suggest that higher temperatures could create more of the types of hydrogen bonds that can act as nucleation centres:

    Maybe its due to conservation of energy. When you 'instantly' cool hot water so it freezes then the potential/kinetic energy of the hot water body has  no time to be dispersed in the environment and is conserved in the water body.  Due to the cooling/freezing potential/kinetic energy  changes into potential/electric energy which forms electrostatic attraction which creates hydrogen bonds. Is this possible?

     

    3 hours ago, Suzie said:
    4 hours ago, Strange said:

     

    I suppose it depends upon what one considers hot,

    Isn't water described as being hot, when it feels hot?  It's an interpretation.

  7. On ‎18‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 3:09 PM, swansont said:

    Proof is absolute. You can do that in math, where you can take a premise and a set of rules, and apply them.

    This is a silly, black and white opinion

     

    On ‎21‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 12:11 AM, Phi for All said:

    This right here is why I think you're wrong. You take a solid definition of proof (100%) and then decide to also use it to describe what science looks for (best current explanation). You insist it means both things, and to me that muddies the water unnecessarily, and robs a great word of its clarity. 

    As far as others using it in papers, I also blame lazy definitions. Perhaps they don't use "theory" because so many folks like you insist that it can also mean something else, in this case "something I dreamt up while showering". 

    lol, you are wrong. Many people use evidence and proof as if they are synonimes.(Are they wrong?) It depends what your mother language(many languages don't have a word for 'proof') is and the field of science you are in. You are very narrowminded and you always assume your opinion is the only correct one.

  8. On ‎29‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:38 PM, John Cuthber said:
    On ‎29‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:49 PM, Itoero said:

     

    Yes as long as it is above the melting point of the material (presumably hydrated sodium acetate)

    Ah yes, the melting point is about 58°C. I can do the plastic pads in hot water before I go cutting and pouring.

     

    On ‎29‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 10:33 PM, Sensei said:

    Yes. But cheaper would be to get sodium hydroxide and acetic acid alone, and mix them in the right proportions. They are used in kitchen and toilet for unblocking pipes.

     

    It's often made with vinegar and baking soda...isn't that cheaper and safer?

     

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    Any residues or scratches on the glass might cause the solution to crystallise. But that's OK, you can just heat it again to reverse that.

    Ok, thx, then I definitely have to heat the heating pads before I cut them open.

     

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    hy are you calling this "ice"? Just because it is crystalline?

    Because other people call it 'hot ice'. It's a trihydrate so it makes a lot of sense to call it 'ice'.

    How does the crystal structure look?

    Is it basically H2O- Ice with an impurity?

  9. On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:27 PM, Strange said:

    No. That movement changes gravity, which causes the Doppler effect.

    When you move, you alter the position of particles around you. (doppler effect)When you stand still you hardly alter the position of the particles around you.(no doppler effect)  When you alter the position of particles you change the gravitational attraction.

     

    On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:49 PM, beecee said:
    On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 6:37 PM, Itoero said:

    .

    Gravity has nothing to do with sound

    You need atoms/molecules for sound...the ones in our atmosphere for example have gravitational attraction to other atoms/molecules and to the Earth (which is also a bunch of atoms/molecules)

     

    On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:29 PM, Outrider said:

    mple aerodynamics which is why we can and do ignore any gravitational effects. Your not wrong that particles in the air have a gravitational attraction its just that its so small that we can ignore it.

    The gravitational attraction between particles can probably be ignored but the one between particles and you and between particles and the Earth can't.

     

    On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:29 PM, Outrider said:
    On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 6:37 PM, Itoero said:

     

    This is what you need to cite or better yet retract because its just wrong. AFAIK the only thing that alters a gravitational field is more or less mass.

    When you are on the move you change the gravit field since you have mass. Atoms/molecules in the atmosphere also have mass, your motion alters the position of many atoms/moleculles which changes the gravit field.

     

    On ‎25‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:29 PM, Outrider said:

    Also why do you spell gravitational like this "gravit."

    Because I like to shorten words.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.