Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Solifuge]

Obituary: Great Barrier Reef (25 Million BC-2016)
Great Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, To The Horror Of Scientists

Ocean Acidification, Ocean Heating, and Coral Bleaching isn't really news for most people up on Climate Change. Still, the GBR suffered a major blow after a bleaching event recently, and it's worrying that there might be more to come.

There's a rich ecosystem and important feeding and breeding ground created by the GBR, and there's apparently 70,000 or so jobs dependent on it. Whether your concerns are ecological or economic, the fact that we've now lost 20%+ of the reef is really bad news.

Antropocene Mass Extinction Event, ho? I hope not.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm curious how old you are, MSH, if you don't mind my asking. I don't think it will explain the weird apocalyptic bend or anything, just curious if it's a young guy who's passionate about this, or an old man ranting or what.

This is one of those questions there's no reason to answer, since any answer will simply be used in a justification for dismissing my arguments.

I mean, you take things which could sound reasonable, but then go a few extra steps into "YOU MANIACS, DAMN YOU, DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!" territory.

It is a fundamental human conceit to say "it won't be that bad, it won't happen to me". I would have more tolerance for these sort of risks if they were actually ever addressed, but control of society has the ear of short-sighted debt traders and stockholders. We are only getting more and more fragile as time goes on, because that fragility serves to help peak the current economic order. We're in a bad fucking way when a major crop blight today could potentially do more damage than a major crop blight in 1810.

I mean, you're talking about setting up monocultures and monocrops, the US has about 1.4 million km² of arable land in use, with tons of different crops across it all.

It also has around 130,000 km² of land devoted to a specific type of crop.

See if you can guess which one, corn maybe, wheat, ooh, tobacco might be it!

Got your guess in mind?

Spoiler: Click to see if you figured it out. (click to show/hide)

It's grass, our lawns, bluegrasses, zoysias, bentgrass, bermuda, st. augustine, they're all present in various amounts, given water, fertilizer, regular mowing, manual weeding, pesticide, and of course... donations from dogs.

Indeed, they're actually helpful in reducing the urban heat island effect, and draw down a good amount of carbon dioxide, anywhere from 12~35 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year conservatively and wipe out the 1 or 2 Gigatonnes of CO2 we exhale along with most or all the ~33+ Gigatonnes of CO2 we emit. They also take a fuckton of water, lots of which winds up as runoff.

The landmass is not the primary issue, the primary issue is that seeking a monocrop (easier and cheaper but more vulnerable than diversity) puts everything we use those crops for at risk. It is obviously a matter of scale, but breakthroughs like the above are enticing deals with the devil. Some jackoff agribusiness executive is going to see that shit and be like "Three times our current sales if we transition to soybeans! Make it so!". Symmetry is death.

So hey, there are things to get mad about, really the whole "let's use ethanol to reduce CO2 emissions" turning into "LET'S GROW ALL THE CORN FOR ETHANOL" is kinda crazy, and naturally monocropping is a problem, just not sure if it's quite in the "goddamn it fuck it all you stupid bastards deserve to die" sort of territory you make it sound like.

It's not about what we deserve, the universe is apathetic. My frustrations stem from the unstoppable stubborn insistence of people to stick on their familiar lifestyle as the best and only way to live, that must be protected at least until they die no matter the consequences. All of this becomes a lot easier if you accept that some fundamental changes would be a good thing, not just for the planet but for yourself as well, and not just in the "not all die" way either.

Meanwhile, I'm stuck arguing policy points with people who think ecology is a Red Chinese plot to discredit American industriousness, and there comes a point where you start to take solace in their probable future death by ignorance.

[Max™]

Well, MSH, while I feel sometimes like I might be annoying as hell given that I agree with the actual movements to reduce water wastage, kill off coal, rework things away from monocultures, slow down on the trend towards paving all the things, all that jazz, but then I point out that more CO2 is a good thing for life in general since plants are more or less built with shit pulled out of the air, plus it couldn't actually drive the climate system through some magical positive feedback loop (seriously, long term stability+high gain positive feedback?), and even if it did, warmer climates are not the arid deathworlds which they are often said to be, but I wasn't wanting or intending to be dismissive, just curious, I've came across all sorts of positions on the environment, but that kind of cynicism is rare so I don't know where to place it really.

Myself, I've got apocalyptic malaise, listening to various doom and gloom scenarios since the late 80's I could just as easily say it is a damn near normal human response to look at something and immediately jump to the worst possible outcome and begin trying to convince others about the impending end of the world.

When you're living in a grassland and see smoke, or hearing the rumbles of an incoming flood, detecting an ambush before the lions actually get the chance to spring it, these would be incredibly valuable times to say "OH SHIT GUYS WE ARE ALL FUCKED, LISTEN TO ME!" but nowadays these instincts aren't tuned to the right scale. We can't hear 10+ km meteors, identify the launches of icbm strikes, or look at the ground and know a magnitude 8.5 quake is about to strike. We are aware of them though, and our danger scanners are still active, so it's almost comforting to find a new apocalypse it seems?

Obituary: Great Barrier Reef (25 Million BC-2016)
Great Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, To The Horror Of Scientists

Ocean Acidification, Ocean Heating, and Coral Bleaching isn't really news for most people up on Climate Change. Still, the GBR suffered a major blow after a bleaching event recently, and it's worrying that there might be more to come.

There's a rich ecosystem and important feeding and breeding ground created by the GBR, and there's apparently 70,000 or so jobs dependent on it. Whether your concerns are ecological or economic, the fact that we've now lost 20%+ of the reef is really bad news.

Antropocene Mass Extinction Event, ho? I hope not.

Ah, here's a more scientific source than huffpo: http://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/coral-bleaching-taskforce-documents-most-severe-bleaching-on-record I mean, it's more scientific than most available sources, so it's pretty easy to beat out huffpo there.

It also has around 130,000 km² of land devoted to a specific type of crop.

See if you can guess which one, corn maybe, wheat, ooh, tobacco might be it!

Got your guess in mind?

Spoiler: Click to see if you figured it out. (click to show/hide)

It's grass, our lawns, bluegrasses, zoysias, bentgrass, bermuda, st. augustine, they're all present in various amounts, given water, fertilizer, regular mowing, manual weeding, pesticide, and of course... donations from dogs.

Indeed, they're actually helpful in reducing the urban heat island effect, and draw down a good amount of carbon dioxide, anywhere from 12~35 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year conservatively and wipe out the 1 or 2 Gigatonnes of CO2 we exhale along with most or all the ~33+ Gigatonnes of CO2 we emit. They also take a fuckton of water, lots of which winds up as runoff.

Objection! Not a crop.

Ok fine, though it is a cultivated plant, but it is only harvested for social acceptance, rather than actual use of the material.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I have a question: since molecules tend to absorb specific wavelengths, and collections of molecules in the form of gases do the same - why are solids different? What about solidity changes the absorption spectrum of a substance?

[Rose]

Why do you think solids have color?

[USEC_OFFICER]

As far as I'm aware, it doesn't change the absorption spectrum of a substance. It's just that light reflects off of solids instead of passing through gases. _{Well. Probably more accurate to say that gases aren't dense enough to reflect as much light or something.}

What makes you think that changing to a solid state affects the absorption spectrum of a molecule/material?

[Max™]

I have a question: since molecules tend to absorb specific wavelengths, and collections of molecules in the form of gases do the same - why are solids different? What about solidity changes the absorption spectrum of a substance?

You're looking at a rather complex field involving refraction, attenuation, opacity, scattering, optical depth, and so forth. I'd start looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth and see if you are familiar with any of the terms there, follow some back and forth to see the links, check the stuff you are less informed on, and be warned that the Beer-Lambert links down a rabbit hole which you may never be heard from again.

[Sergarr]

I have a question: since molecules tend to absorb specific wavelengths, and collections of molecules in the form of gases do the same - why are solids different? What about solidity changes the absorption spectrum of a substance?

Uh, I'm not sure it actually does, but if it does, then it's because of these things.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Why do you think solids have color?

Don't gases have color too?

As far as I'm aware, it doesn't change the absorption spectrum of a substance. It's just that light reflects off of solids instead of passing through gases. _{Well. Probably more accurate to say that gases aren't dense enough to reflect as much light or something.}

What makes you think that changing to a solid state affects the absorption spectrum of a molecule/material?

But how does solidity result in reflection?

I have a question: since molecules tend to absorb specific wavelengths, and collections of molecules in the form of gases do the same - why are solids different? What about solidity changes the absorption spectrum of a substance?

You're looking at a rather complex field involving refraction, attenuation, opacity, scattering, optical depth, and so forth. I'd start looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth and see if you are familiar with any of the terms there, follow some back and forth to see the links, check the stuff you are less informed on, and be warned that the Beer-Lambert links down a rabbit hole which you may never be heard from again.

Thanks!

I have a question: since molecules tend to absorb specific wavelengths, and collections of molecules in the form of gases do the same - why are solids different? What about solidity changes the absorption spectrum of a substance?

Uh, I'm not sure it actually does, but if it does, then it's because of these things.

Would that be multiple molecules becoming excited/de-excited at once? If so, my hunch was correct.

Doesn't Kirchhoff's apply to solids? I'm fairly sure that many solids are approximate gray bodies, and that would mean that they can absorb most wavelengths.

But I suppose I could re-state my question in a better way: How come solids are more like gray bodies than gases?

[Frumple]

But how does solidity result in reflection?

um

it's in the name

in order to reflect

you have to have something to hit

the closer to solid you get

the tighter the weave

and the more stuff gets hit

the more stuff gets hit

the stronger the reflection

hence the more solid the material

the likelier it is to reflect

_{i'd call this a haiku but it's not}

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I'm a bit confused. If the photon doesn't have the right energy to be absorbed, how would it interact with the matter in any way? Photons are uncharged, gravity's not really doing anything at this scale, the weak force is the weak force, and the strong force wouldn't apply. (I'm still not sure what the weak force is, anyway, beyond [mumble mumble] radioactive decay [mumble mumble].)

[Arx]

You have forgotten a really important fact: photons have wave-particle duality. They're not 'uncharged' as such.

[Sergarr]

Would that be multiple molecules becoming excited/de-excited at once? If so, my hunch was correct.

No, it's not that. Those are excitations of the entire solid body as a single entity.

And I've checked wikipedia and it appears to not be phonons.

But I suppose I could re-state my question in a better way: How come solids are more like gray bodies than gases?

Because solid body is a far better approximation of a "box for photons" that a gas. In gas, photons can move rather freely and thus remain pure, with frequencies corresponding to spectral lines, but in solids, they get bounced around by the atoms a bajillion times, each time slightly shifting their frequency due to quantum bullshit, which eventually turns these pure innocent initially emitted photons into a generic black-body radiation mass, and visa-versa. At least, that's what I think is happening. Wikipedia is surprisingly unclear on the subject.

FAKEEDIT:

I'm a bit confused. If the photon doesn't have the right energy to be absorbed, how would it interact with the matter in any way? Photons are uncharged, gravity's not really doing anything at this scale, the weak force is the weak force, and the strong force wouldn't apply. (I'm still not sure what the weak force is, anyway, beyond [mumble mumble] radioactive decay [mumble mumble].)

Well, since black bodies have a full radiation spectrum, any kind of photon (within reasonable bounds) will be able to get absorbed.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

No, not the absorption, that I get. How does reflection occur?

[Sergarr]

No, not the absorption, that I get. How does reflection occur?

It's described quite well on wikipedia. It's basically standard wave thing where every object obstructing the wave's movement becomes a source of secondary waves. When there are a lot of such objects, these secondary waves cancel each other out in almost all directions - except for one, which is where the reflection goes.