The article from the paper, showing the heat map graph doesn't show excessive hot spots. The hottest spot shows 200 mW/m^2, which is only twice as much as the area average of 100 mW. So, if you want to argue that several W/m^2 can't possible have an effect on ice sheets, it doesn't sound very convincing that 10 times as less (even in the hot spots), has a greater effect.
As far as the sea water getting under the ice, that's not so far fetched, as a lot of the ice rests on bedrock that's below sea level. It is very easy for sea water to get underneath that.
Extra heat from increased greenhouse effect is a couple of Watts/m^2. Of course, the solar exposure to the Antarctic low (low angle and high reflectivity), but direct sunlight is not the biggest factor. Increased sea water temperatures, melting ice at the edges and bottom of the ice sheet is the dominating factor. As the edges melt, the glaciers can flow more quickly, transporting more ice to the sea. The sea water gets warmed up elsewhere, where there is more direct sun exposure, and the currents take it to the south.
If you add the trend lines for each of the two graphs, it becomes clear that your statement that the temperature rises "just as fast" is simply wrong.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Of course, the whole comparison is very simplistic. At the very least, some effort should be done to remove influence of other well known factors, such as aerosols, irradiance from the sun, and ENSO cycles.
Total waste heat can be simply estimated by looking at total power consumption, for which we have data available, and assuming all energy is ultimately converted to heat. Total human energy production is about 540 exajoules per year. Total energy we get from the sun is about 3,8 million exajoules. Just the 11-year sunspot cycle makes the solar output wobble by about 0.1%, which is already 7 times more than human energy production, and the sunspot cycle is barely noticeable in the temperature data.
They are only assumptions for the ignorant. For example, the total amount of waste heat added by transportation and industrial activity can be easily calculated. A reasonable estimate can even be calculated by a layman with data available on-line. If you would take the effort to produce such a calculation, you would realise that the total heat generated by these activities isn't nearly enough to account for the global warming. If you lack the skills to do a simple calculation like this, you have no business claiming ignorance in others.
If climate has an effect on penguin population (not saying it has...), it would be silly to consider direct contact between atmospheric air and penguins as a pathway. Most likely, such an effect would be the result of change in food supply.
This geothermal heat is most likely not a new phenomenon. It adds a little base heat to the system, but the recent changes are due to CO2. Also, the absolute amounts are rather small. The average geothermal heat flow under the ice sheet is only 100 milliwatts per square meter, compared to an average of 65 milliwatts for the rest of the globe. Compared to the hundreds of watts of heat from the sun, it's a rather small contribution.
At an altitude of 10000 ft, where they are building the telescope, there's not a lot of atmosphere left, and because it's in a remote desert area, the atmosphere is usually very clear.
First there is a need to identify what exactly these manned missions are going to accomplish. Saving humanity ? No, the earth is a much better bet. Exploration ? No, much better and cheaper with robots. What else ? And without extended manned missions, what's the point of mining the asteroids ?
Less energy and resources than the Gobi desert. And while Mars has plenty of minerals (like the Gobi desert), it will take a huge infrastructure to collect the ores and process them into useful forms. We have enough trouble landing a 1 ton rover on Mars. Imagine what it would take to send a steel smelter.
Sure, it's nice to get the spin-off technology, but you can also get that while aiming for a goal that actually has a purpose. A human settlement on Mars is about as useful as a self-supporting resort in the middle of the Gobi desert, and I don't see anybody rushing to build that.
Of course, bitcoin mining using the SHA256 hash which is not a typical application for a GPU. It involves a lot of shuffling at the bit level, which a GPU was not designed for.
For some other workloads, involving standard math operations, or large amounts of memory bandwith, the GPU will likely be faste.r
The same human behavior that destroys Earth will also destroy Mars, with the difference that Mars is already pretty thoroughly destroyed to start with.
Slashdot Mirror
Adding cores is easy. Keeping all the cores busy with useful work in a typical range of high performance applications is the difficult part.
Your answer doesn't really help to clarify who actually believes that "73 people contribute (sic) all scientists".
The article from the paper, showing the heat map graph doesn't show excessive hot spots. The hottest spot shows 200 mW/m^2, which is only twice as much as the area average of 100 mW. So, if you want to argue that several W/m^2 can't possible have an effect on ice sheets, it doesn't sound very convincing that 10 times as less (even in the hot spots), has a greater effect. As far as the sea water getting under the ice, that's not so far fetched, as a lot of the ice rests on bedrock that's below sea level. It is very easy for sea water to get underneath that.
After all if you believe that 73 people contribute "all scientists" then you deserve to be mislead.
Maybe. But who believes that ?
Extra heat from increased greenhouse effect is a couple of Watts/m^2. Of course, the solar exposure to the Antarctic low (low angle and high reflectivity), but direct sunlight is not the biggest factor. Increased sea water temperatures, melting ice at the edges and bottom of the ice sheet is the dominating factor. As the edges melt, the glaciers can flow more quickly, transporting more ice to the sea. The sea water gets warmed up elsewhere, where there is more direct sun exposure, and the currents take it to the south.
If you add the trend lines for each of the two graphs, it becomes clear that your statement that the temperature rises "just as fast" is simply wrong. http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... Of course, the whole comparison is very simplistic. At the very least, some effort should be done to remove influence of other well known factors, such as aerosols, irradiance from the sun, and ENSO cycles.
Total waste heat can be simply estimated by looking at total power consumption, for which we have data available, and assuming all energy is ultimately converted to heat. Total human energy production is about 540 exajoules per year. Total energy we get from the sun is about 3,8 million exajoules. Just the 11-year sunspot cycle makes the solar output wobble by about 0.1%, which is already 7 times more than human energy production, and the sunspot cycle is barely noticeable in the temperature data.
They are only assumptions for the ignorant. For example, the total amount of waste heat added by transportation and industrial activity can be easily calculated. A reasonable estimate can even be calculated by a layman with data available on-line. If you would take the effort to produce such a calculation, you would realise that the total heat generated by these activities isn't nearly enough to account for the global warming. If you lack the skills to do a simple calculation like this, you have no business claiming ignorance in others.
If climate has an effect on penguin population (not saying it has...), it would be silly to consider direct contact between atmospheric air and penguins as a pathway. Most likely, such an effect would be the result of change in food supply.
This geothermal heat is most likely not a new phenomenon. It adds a little base heat to the system, but the recent changes are due to CO2. Also, the absolute amounts are rather small. The average geothermal heat flow under the ice sheet is only 100 milliwatts per square meter, compared to an average of 65 milliwatts for the rest of the globe. Compared to the hundreds of watts of heat from the sun, it's a rather small contribution.
Research has shown that the most stable population count is zero.
At an altitude of 10000 ft, where they are building the telescope, there's not a lot of atmosphere left, and because it's in a remote desert area, the atmosphere is usually very clear.
That's an example of a programmer not understanding the rules of a conforming C/C++ compiler. It should be fixed in the source, not in the compiler.
Or sort out the chlorinated plastics first. I suspect the plastic to oil process requires the same thing.
A geologist with a rock hammer could learn more in an hour than the robotic probe learned in a year.
It takes more than a year of preparation to get the geologist on the surface with a rock hammer, and it would cost a lot more money.
Or filter out the dioxins from the smoke.
First there is a need to identify what exactly these manned missions are going to accomplish. Saving humanity ? No, the earth is a much better bet. Exploration ? No, much better and cheaper with robots. What else ? And without extended manned missions, what's the point of mining the asteroids ?
Less energy and resources than the Gobi desert. And while Mars has plenty of minerals (like the Gobi desert), it will take a huge infrastructure to collect the ores and process them into useful forms. We have enough trouble landing a 1 ton rover on Mars. Imagine what it would take to send a steel smelter.
Instead of setting up a complicated process to convert plastic to oil, just burn the stuff, and use the heat to generate electricity.
Sure, it's nice to get the spin-off technology, but you can also get that while aiming for a goal that actually has a purpose. A human settlement on Mars is about as useful as a self-supporting resort in the middle of the Gobi desert, and I don't see anybody rushing to build that.
Of course, bitcoin mining using the SHA256 hash which is not a typical application for a GPU. It involves a lot of shuffling at the bit level, which a GPU was not designed for. For some other workloads, involving standard math operations, or large amounts of memory bandwith, the GPU will likely be faste.r
The same human behavior that destroys Earth will also destroy Mars, with the difference that Mars is already pretty thoroughly destroyed to start with.