/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10725734
There's ~95% odds that any child born right now in the US, will have their umbilical cord clamped early. Is this bad for anyone except the infant with brain damage and reduced IQ?

no
it is just bad for the long run when it comes to albedo, but that could probably get fixed.

>>10725734
Also that graph sucks ass. Where are the numbers? What does it even indicate?

>>10725734
Why did you graph the strain to elastic in relation to normal position of a thong?

>>10725734
>asking if something is 'bad' in reference to inductive methodology

The consequences of this is a philosophical consideration.

>>10725737
If the US stopped clamping babies burgers would be less retarded and we wouldn't be able to laugh at them.

>>10725792
Yeah but look at what a powerful machine the US is, which exerts its power globally. This is based on central bankers, being the world's reserve currency, and a massive military. Many of these activities rely on a sleepy, sick, malleable population.

It's almost like things don't exist in a vacuum. It's almost like you cannot clamp a child's umbilical cord, or amputate parts of their genitals, in a vacuum.

>>10725734
>ice-free arctic
...is a symptom.
>is that bad
...it is an *indicator* of "bad", Jasper.

>>10725734
>completely ice-free arctic
what the fuck? is that for real?

>>10725734
I don't know what that drawing says. That's not a graph.

>>10725734
Yes. It means a total collapse, because water absorbs far more sunlight than ice, so the temperatures will rapidly increase.

>>10725734
Kek

>>10725743
>>10726034
y-axis is amount of ice (either ice volume or ice area, don't know)
bottom of the y-axis is zero, so an ice-free arctic

x-axis is time of year, starting at jan 1 and ending at jan 1

the lines are from different years
no clue what the black and yellow lines are, probably averages or +- standard deviation, something like that

the red line is for 2019, as you can see it's already record breaking low this early
so the 50% is about whether or not that line hits rock bottom later on (september is usually the month of least ice in the arctic)

>>10725734
1) It takes the same amount of energy to melt a given volume of ice as it does to raise the temperature of just above freezing water to 79 C
2) The variation of volume (melting and refreezing) of arctic sea ice is about 15,000 cubic km
3) The dark ocean absorbs roughly 10 times as much solar energy than the highly reflective ice
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html
4) The volume of the arctic ocean is roughly 18 million cubic km

15,000 cubic km * 10 * 79 = 11,850,000
11,850,000/18,000,000 = 0.65

So, once the ice is gone, the arctic ocean will absorb enough energy to be heated 0.65 degrees per year, or 6.5 degrees per decade.

Assuming these calculations are anywhere near realistic, then yes, this is very very bad for all of us, especially considering the amount of methane and CO2 locked up in subsea permafrost, as well as on the land surrounding the arctic.

>>10725734
Post a graph without units and no sources. Yea legit.

>>10725734 (OP)
1) It takes the same amount of energy to melt a given volume of ice as it does to raise the temperature of just above freezing water to 79 C
2) The variation of volume (melting and refreezing) of arctic sea ice is about 15,000 cubic km
3) The dark ocean absorbs roughly 10 times as much solar energy than the highly reflective ice
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html
4) The volume of the arctic ocean is roughly 18 million cubic km

15,000 cubic km * 9 * 79 = 10,665,000
10,665,000/18,000,000 = 0.59

So, once the ice is gone, the arctic ocean will absorb enough energy to be heated 0.59 degrees per year, or 5.9 degrees per decade.

Assuming these calculations are anywhere near realistic, then yes, this is very very bad for all of us, especially considering the amount of methane and CO2 locked up in subsea permafrost, as well as on the land surrounding the arctic

>>10725792
I don't think that that's just a US thing

>>10725734
Hey don't worry sometimes climate models are wrong. I mean hey we thought permafrost would remain frozen until 2090, but hey looks like that isn't the case:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/climate-change-breakdown-arctic-frost-thawing-canada-environment-a8959056.html

>>10725734
Say you have some ice in your bathtub. If it melts, will the water level rise, fall, or stay the same?

>>10725734
climate change is pretty good for most developed countries

>>10726896
>climate change is pretty good for Russia
Glavset go home.

>>10726870
nah it's pretty much unheard of in Europe look it up.

>>10726882
A lot of article ice is landlocked. Most of the water ice on the planet isn't floating. When this ice melts. Water levels rise. Also when the average temperature in the oceans increase water levels rise from thermal expansion. Thermal expansion is the majority contributor to current sea level rise until the land ice starts to significantly melt.

>>10725734
We need to hear Greta Thunberg's view on this, she will set it straight.