Starship Asterisk*

apodman wrote: I think we can settle the question of who is a scientist and who isn't.

Scientist: "Take a beaker ..."

Non-scientist: "I checked my cabinet, and all I have is glasses and cups. Will one of them work?"

This is a reasonable scientific question considering the effect of surface tension on differing materials combined with consideration of how much overflow is to be expected. In fact, not being a scientist working in a lab, I must ask are all beakers maufactured to have identical reactions to water surface tension? (My laboratory training may lack, but my Dad was a Tool and Die Maker measuring in the 1/10,000ths.)

---

apodman wrote: Back when I enjoyed an oceanography course, everything was in parts per thousand or parts per million (35 ppt for the NaCl in sea water) rather than percent. Every subject likes its little trademarks.

Having read Rachel Carson's 'The Sea Around Us', Apeman, I sure do know that the big fish eat the little fish.

Furthermore - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Beaker may refer to:
Laboratory beaker, a glass object used for measuring and holding fluids in a laboratory setting
Beaker (archaeology), a prehistoric drinking vessel
Beaker culture, the archaeological culture often called the Beaker people
Beaker (musician), the Contemporary Christian Music songwriter, musician, and Rich Mullins collaborator
Beaker (drinkware), a beverage container
Beaker, the hapless assistant of Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on The Muppet Show
Beaker, a term used by University of Missouri sports fans to describe fans and athletes of University of Kansas[citation needed]

I wonder what a Beaker means to an Ornothologist?

9tronium wrote:Chris, I'm not really sure you have the qualifications to continue this discussion, so you should probably let it end here. But before you continue befuddling middle schoolers everywhere, let’s point out a couple of facts that are well documented about your experiment and sea-ice.

Unless you’re talking about continental glaciers, sea-ice is saltwater ice.

You do know that water expels dissolved salt as it freezes, right?

9tronium wrote: Here's the problem with global warming theory. If there were warming of any significance happening, just like a spinning skater, the earth's rotation would be slowing down as the equator grew from rising sea levels. As of this date there have been no additional changes to the times, tables or calculations for sun rises or sun sets ...

Actually, Innuit have reported the sun above the horizon earlier than normal. "Scientists' quoted said this was probably mirage. After that, the topic was removed from the news sources.

Chris,
Per your experiment...Would the pressure at which the ice is formed or stored (think comperssed water molecules forming blue glacier ice) create a slightly more enhanced overflow/increase than regular Freezer formed ice cubes? Also, like Qev pointed out, I too thought that freezing salt water would force out the dissolved salt. (so long as there was more water for it to relocate to.)
Perhaps, the next time you preform that experiment, you could produce a video and post it to youtube

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Science is a search after knowledge, Chris.

That's where you are wrong- or at least, imprecise. In the modern sense, science is the search for knowledge using a specific, rational process. Philosophy is a search for knowledge as well, but it isn't remotely scientific.

So, does your definition, Chris, of the type of science acceptable to this forum include astrophysics which wasn't considered acceptable by astronomers a mere few years ago? Does your definition include synthetic biology, which has become a recognized form of research investigating potential life forms on other planets but perhaps not recognized as such by you here and now (I just read about it this week)?

It isn't my definition. And what you are missing, and I think always have, is that I'm not talking about any particular body of knowledge- be it astrophysics, biology, whatever. Knowledge changes, and it's wise to remain skeptical and not get too attached to any particular piece of it. What I'm talking about is science as a method of discovery.

Plus - how much more "specific and rational" can science get than by touching, seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, examining, uprooting, cutting open, removing bark from, cooking, observing ingested effects on wild animals, tasting, classifying, testing balistically, shaping aerodynamically (is the Boomerang an invention of science?) etc...

Indeed, I noted that all people use certain rational approaches to gaining knowledge that are a subset of scientific methods. But scientists are very systematic about their efforts to understand nature and build and extend upon past knowledge. That isn't a trait generally found in pre-technological cultures, which is why I said they wouldn't generally be called "scientific".

BMAONE23 wrote:Chris,
Per your experiment...Would the pressure at which the ice is formed or stored (think comperssed water molecules forming blue glacier ice) create a slightly more enhanced overflow/increase than regular Freezer formed ice cubes?

I'm not sure. It seems likely, since the actual salt concentration ought to vary somewhat with pressure.

Also, like Qev pointed out, I too thought that freezing salt water would force out the dissolved salt. (so long as there was more water for it to relocate to.)

I think it does, to some extent. When you make ice cubes out of salt water, you get wet ice- it's briny on the outside, enough so that the surface stays liquid. But there's plenty of salt left in the ice itself- easily verified by taste.

Perhaps, the next time you preform that experiment, you could produce a video and post it to youtube

That's a good idea. Next year, the school where I mentor science is back on its chemistry/physics rotation, so I'll be repeating the experiment. I should let a group of students produce a video.

This thread falls under the realm of "empirical" science: Measurable Observable, Repeatable.

The sea level is always in flux. Because it is where man wants it now does not mean that is the "normal" level.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072043.htm
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/16 ... index.html

"IF" humans are causing global warming we may be inadvertently making the next inevitable ice age more survivable.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:This thread falls under the realm of "empirical" science: Measurable Observable, Repeatable.

The sea level is always in flux. Because it is where man wants it now does not mean that is the "normal" level.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072043.htm
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/16 ... index.html

"IF" humans are causing global warming we may be inadvertently making the next inevitable ice age more survivable.

This might be true if the Ice Ages aren't the natural mechanism for scrubbing the atmosphere of harmful levels of Carbon Dioxide and Methane. But if the Increased hemispheric precipitation and colder weather brought about by the incurrent Ice Age are the cleaning mechanism for the atmosphere, the balance of the "checks and balances" (with the Check side being the reduction of the sources of the gasses), then we might not be able to stave off the cold period, only force it to become even more inhospitable to human life.

For anyone who would like some insight into sea ice physics, Peter Wadhams covers the subject for my purposes and there's no urge to lash out after you read it. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

Dear Dr Skeptic-If AGW exists and plays any role in our climate, ice age is to AGW as F5 tornado is to trailer park. The is no comparison of the forces involved. We couldn't moderate an ice age under any circumstances, we can only move out of the way. I'm thinking Venezuela (post Hugo).

GW exists and your analogy might be prophetic if you restate it "Ice Age is to GW as F(x) tornado is to trailer park".
GW is the effect, (A)GW may (and likely does) play a part in the cause. Reduction of the (A) portion may temporarily stave off the end result or atleast lessen its effect but will likely not eliminate it. It could however control the overall time spent in the resultant IA.

bhrobards wrote:If AGW exists and plays any role in our climate, ice age is to AGW as F5 tornado is to trailer park. The is no comparison of the forces involved.

But what if ice age is to hare as GW is to tortoise? Alternatively, what if the car with the greatest acceleration is not the one with the highest top speed? What if we don't have to go though multiple ice age cycles to see if this is so - if it all happens between ice ages (if the car with the low acceleration and the high top speed runs the entire race while the high acceleration car is just idling)?

In other words, the annualized effect of the onset of an ice age may be great, but there are limits to its total effect. Something with a lesser annualized effect, left unchecked, could in time conceivably have a greater total effect.

bhrobards wrote:We couldn't moderate an ice age under any circumstances, we can only move out of the way.

Says who? I've read a lot of unsubstantiated comments that we have no chance of influencing our solar input or what happens to it once it is here. They sound a lot like all the unsubstantiated comments that we have no chance of having a negative impact on the environment either. I personally would not make a blanket statement that anything is beyond our emerging capabilities - look at history, see all we have wrought, and ask yourself who would have believed it a couple of generations before it happened.

There is another point of equilibrium not mentioned: A major decrease in human population expediting a recovery.

bhrobards wrote:Dear Dr Skeptic-If AGW exists and plays any role in our climate, ice age is to AGW as F5 tornado is to trailer park. The is no comparison of the forces involved. We couldn't moderate an ice age under any circumstances, we can only move out of the way. I'm thinking Venezuela (post Hugo).

I trust this is an opinion, or can you source a definitive model?

Chris Peterson wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:Also, like Qev pointed out, I too thought that freezing salt water would force out the dissolved salt. (so long as there was more water for it to relocate to.)

I think it does, to some extent. When you make ice cubes out of salt water, you get wet ice- it's briny on the outside, enough so that the surface stays liquid. But there's plenty of salt left in the ice itself- easily verified by taste.

Fresh saltwater ice does still contain salt, in the form of pockets of concentrated brine, so it'd certainly still be salty to taste. In the case of sea ice, as it ages these brine pockets tend to work their way out through various means (eg. becoming concentrated enough to melt their way downwards, by escaping through mechanical cracks, etc.), leaving the ice effectively freshwater. So basically, seasonal sea ice would still have a noticeable salt content, but old ice (eg. the permanent north polar cap) would be more or less pure water ice.

Qev wrote:Fresh saltwater ice does still contain salt, in the form of pockets of concentrated brine, so it'd certainly still be salty to taste. In the case of sea ice, as it ages these brine pockets tend to work their way out through various means (eg. becoming concentrated enough to melt their way downwards, by escaping through mechanical cracks, etc.), leaving the ice effectively freshwater. So basically, seasonal sea ice would still have a noticeable salt content, but old ice (eg. the permanent north polar cap) would be more or less pure water ice.

What permanent north polar cap? <g>

Seriously, while the ice may be fairly low salt, it doesn't matter as far as sea level is concerned. The density effect is fairly small to begin with, and there just isn't that much surface ice in the boreal arctic. The north polar cap is, on average, no more than a few meters thick. Compare that with the Antarctic ice shelves, which are hundreds of meters thick. So I think the small rise from melting sea ice is effectively going to come only from the Antarctic, where the shelves are a product of glacial runoff.

Dear apodman, I agree many amazing things have been accomplished, but an ice age repulsed? Now you are an optimist of the highest order. I would bet a substantial sum (not huge, just enough to make it sting) that the sun is the major factor in ice ages by far, second would be an orbital factor. And, that the problem is too big to solve even with the scientific method. So since you said: "says who?" Whats your plan? There is no natural disater that can be stopped at this point, particularly astronomical ones. We might get close with small asteroids, but not anytime soon. You theorizing non-existant technology doesn't count.

Dear Dr Skeptic-You want to reduce the human population based on an unproven theory? How are you gonna do it? How will you make people comply? No fair using Stalinist methods.

I'll wager that five years from now the current solar trend will have changed all of our perceptions on global warming but that the left will have done immense damage to the US economy in the name of a minor atmospheric constituent which is vital to life. Contact me by PM if you're interested.

Chris Peterson wrote:What permanent north polar cap? <g>

Haha, you know what I mean.

Seriously, while the ice may be fairly low salt, it doesn't matter as far as sea level is concerned. The density effect is fairly small to begin with, and there just isn't that much surface ice in the boreal arctic. The north polar cap is, on average, no more than a few meters thick. Compare that with the Antarctic ice shelves, which are hundreds of meters thick. So I think the small rise from melting sea ice is effectively going to come only from the Antarctic, where the shelves are a product of glacial runoff.

True, true. I mostly meant to point out where 9tronium's thinking had gone off-course, in that any ice relevant to this discussion is going to be freshwater ice, regardless of its origins. Ice shelves are generally fed by glaciers (and thus sourced in freshwater) anyway, aren't they?

bhrobards wrote:Dear apodman, ... you are an optimist of the highest order.

Thank you. I have many good reasons to be so. For just one example, if I had been born 50 years earlier I would have died young of a disease for which there was as yet no treatment. If you had asked a doctor at that time "what's your plan", there would have been no answer to give you except the hope that science and hard work would find an answer. Yet I live and thrive. If you want to turn astronomers and other living things into pessimists, you'll need not only to try harder but to be more convincing.

Qev wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:What permanent north polar cap? <g>

Haha, you know what I mean.
(snip)

The oldest ice in the north polar cap used to be approx 20 years old. Now the oldest ice in the region is just 6 or 7 years old...the other 14 years have melted away. Gee must be the fountain of youth melting away years

Dr. Skeptic wrote:There is another point of equilibrium not mentioned: A major decrease in human population expediting a recovery.

This is the effect of the Ice Age eliminating sources of CO2 and CH4 as part of the atmospheric scrubbing

bhrobards wrote:Dear apodman, I agree many amazing things have been accomplished, but an ice age repulsed? Now you are an optimist of the highest order. I would bet a substantial sum (not huge, just enough to make it sting) that the sun is the major factor in ice ages by far, second would be an orbital factor. And, that the problem is too big to solve even with the scientific method. So since you said: "says who?" Whats your plan? There is no natural disater that can be stopped at this point, particularly astronomical ones. We might get close with small asteroids, but not anytime soon. You theorizing non-existant technology doesn't count.

Dear Dr Skeptic-You want to reduce the human population based on an unproven theory? How are you gonna do it? How will you make people comply? No fair using Stalinist methods.

I'll wager that five years from now the current solar trend will have changed all of our perceptions on global warming but that the left will have done immense damage to the US economy in the name of a minor atmospheric constituent which is vital to life. Contact me by PM if you're interested.

There are Ice Ages that have been influenced by solar activity combined with orbital attitude but these ice ages last on the order of thousands of years. I believe the last one ended some 11 or 12000 years ago. The smaller ones that last on average of like a 22 year cooling/warming trend would most definitely point to Solar influence only. However; it is the intermediate range ones that can last for hundreds of years (like the Little Ice Age) which are likely to be influenced by our activities.

I would predict that the current warming trend continues for another 8 years. Then Solar max will have passed and the cooling trend of the appx 22 year cycle will begin. Funny, the heating / cooling 22 year trends seem to coincide with 2 solar cycles. But this activity can't be used as a cause for longer term Ice Ages as it only has a short term effect.

bhrobards wrote:Dear Dr Skeptic-You want to reduce the human population based on an unproven theory? How are you gonna do it? How will you make people comply? No fair using Stalinist methods.

Nope. I don't want to reduce the human population on an unproven theory, or for any reason. I also don't want to gamble human extinction on an unproven theory (opinion) either.

bhrobards wrote:Dear Dr Skeptic-You want to reduce the human population based on an unproven theory? How are you gonna do it? How will you make people comply? No fair using Stalinist methods.

Do Stalinist methods differ from the deliberate near extinction of the 30 to 50 million North American aboriginals?

bhrobards wrote:Dear Dr Skeptic-If AGW exists and plays any role in our climate, ice age is to AGW as F5 tornado is to trailer park. The is no comparison of the forces involved. We couldn't moderate an ice age under any circumstances, we can only move out of the way. I'm thinking Venezuela (post Hugo).

And what do you have against Social policies which nourish, house and educate impoverished children?