The EPA’s Science Office Just Removed the Word “Science” From Its Mission Statement

[Nadiru]

So you are going to spend god only knows how much money and energy to make billions of tonnes of ice, just so you can, maybe, reduce the global sea level by a fraction of a foot? Where is all that money and energy going to come from? That also conveniently ignores the problem that attempting to manufacture a man made glacier wont A: replace the sequestered carbon that has already been released from the melting glacial ice, and B: wont prevent said ice melting from continuing anyway. So a metric fuckton of money and energy pissed away making a giant icecube that will just melt again anyway? Brilliant plan.

Also, your "floating" ice theory wont really work. You should really look up how buoyancy works. Shit floats because it displaces more water then it weighs. Your icecube would still increase the volume of water if it was floating.

Ice increases Earth's albedo, which will reduce global temperatures, causing some of the water to re-freeze as local temperatures dip back down to pre-industrial levels. Colder seas are also smaller (the NOAA cites ocean temperature increases as a key aspect of rising sea levels)

As for the cost, that was never in the scope of the discussion I had with Garnier Fructis, so I left it aside. That said, flake ice machines already can use seawater to generate ice (they're used by the fishing industry to keep products cold on-site) and are built to produce industrial quantities ("snow" machines for ski resorts, for example, are flake ice machines.)

[Surfd]

As for the cost, that was never in the scope of the discussion I had with Garnier Fructis, so I left it aside. That said, flake ice machines already can use seawater to generate ice (they're used by the fishing industry to keep products cold on-site) and are built to produce industrial quantities ("snow" machines for ski resorts, for example, are flake ice machines.)

"industrial" quantities are not even in the same ball park as "artificial Glacier".

[Katchii]

Glaciers aren't fully submerged. Bonus points if you take water, freeze it, and then put it on top of the antarctic landmass.

Ice takes up more space than liquid water, that's how ice floats. Water expands when it freezes thereby displacing more water that it contains, making it buoyant.

Also why water bottles, cans of soda and glasses of water expand, explode and shatter in the freezer.

- - - Updated - - -

Ice increases Earth's albedo, which will reduce global temperatures, causing some of the water to re-freeze as local temperatures dip back down to pre-industrial levels.

Some of the radiation would also be absorbed by the glaciers/ ice in the area and the ice would melt. It's like trying to use a pail in a boat that's sinking faster than you can bail it out, yeah you're doing something....but it's not very effective or efficient.

[Shadowferal]

It's all fluff, anyway.

Trump can lower the federal standards all he likes, but it won't make a lick of difference - largely because the biggest auto market in the US is, guess where, California.

And CA does tend to make the rules, regardless of how Fed standards relate. If Trump tries to fight that he'd have to go the Supreme Court and challenge already set precedents. Which means it's a fight he can't win.

[Cæli]

This is just a temporary disagreement resulting from older generation being in power; better educated people will make the world better in 40 years or so. Nothing to be done now, just watch people getting replaced by the ineluctable cycle and keep spreading education.

[wheresmywoft]

This is just a temporary disagreement resulting from older generation being in power; better educated people will make the world better in 40 years or so. Nothing to be done now, just watch people getting replaced by the ineluctable cycle and keep spreading education.

Unfortunately with the challenges to higher education from specific sources in the US, they're trying their best to reduce the number of educated.

[Masark]

It's all fluff, anyway.

Trump can lower the federal standards all he likes, but it won't make a lick of difference - largely because the biggest auto market in the US is, guess where, California.

Which is why Pruitt is making noises about removing California's ability to set their own emissions standards.

[Molis]

If the scientific method can not be applied it is not science.

EPA spends shit tons of money on something nobody can prove or disprove.

[Garnier Fructis]

Which is why Pruitt is making noises about removing California's ability to set their own emissions standards.

States rights are only for conservative states, right?

- - - Updated - - -

If the scientific method can not be applied it is not science.

EPA spends shit tons of money on something nobody can prove or disprove.

Extolling the virtues of the scientific method in one sentence; throwing it out by demanding unreasonable standards (prove or disprove) in the next.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's all fluff, anyway.

Trump can lower the federal standards all he likes, but it won't make a lick of difference - largely because the biggest auto market in the US is, guess where, California.

As a side note, I was thinking about this today.

For all their bitching, screeching, whining, and generally acting like babies about "California deciding elections" and "If we got rid of California, Democrats would never win another election." I was like... "Well, yes, Republicans would probably win every election after that. But good luck getting most types of fruits year round, good luck getting enough cars, good luck getting pretty much any product that has a silicon microchip in it... so basically every electronic."

In some ways I'd love to see the US divided in half over political ideology. That way the Democrats can enjoy a robust supply of cheap and high tech products, delicious food year round, while Republicans can enjoy rubbing two sticks together to keep warm at night... oh and then cooking their steaks over that fire, they'd get to enjoy their steaks at least.


On Topic: I bet everyone is looking forward to Flint Michigan quality water at and aquifer near them. That water coming out of your tap that's dark brown and smells funny? It's fine. There's nothing wrong with it.

It's ALTERNATE WATER.

I bet Trump supporters have been drinking quite a lot of evian. It's showing.

- - - Updated - - -

If the scientific method can not be applied it is not science.

EPA spends shit tons of money on something nobody can prove or disprove.

Yeah, I mean... who can really say if there's lead in our water or not? We haven't figured out how to detect lead in our water, just like we haven't figured out how to measure CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Polyxo]

As a side note, I was thinking about this today.

For all their bitching, screeching, whining, and generally acting like babies about "California deciding elections" and "If we got rid of California, Democrats would never win another election." I was like... "Well, yes, Republicans would probably win every election after that. But good luck getting most types of fruits year round, good luck getting enough cars, good luck getting pretty much any product that has a silicon microchip in it... so basically every electronic."

In some ways I'd love to see the US divided in half over political ideology. That way the Democrats can enjoy a robust supply of cheap and high tech products, delicious food year round, while Republicans can enjoy rubbing two sticks together to keep warm at night... oh and then cooking their steaks over that fire, they'd get to enjoy their steaks at least.


On Topic: I bet everyone is looking forward to Flint Michigan quality water at and aquifer near them. That water coming out of your tap that's dark brown and smells funny? It's fine. There's nothing wrong with it.

It's ALTERNATE WATER.

I bet Trump supporters have been drinking quite a lot of evian. It's showing.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, I mean... who can really say if there's lead in our water or not? We haven't figured out how to detect lead in our water, just like we haven't figured out how to measure CO2 in the atmosphere.

I think its technically not actually water anymore and just aqueous lead.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's false. Water expands when it freezes because of the way the hydrogens atoms bond to the oxygen atom.

Yeah, almost everything he said in that paragraph is wrong on at least some level.

[Garnier Fructis]

So anyway, when it comes to government agencies, there's "science", like what educational groups do, and science, like what NASA does. One is real the other is a tool to push an agenda. And in places like the EPA it can be hard to tell the difference.

Climate change is a natural science, not a social science. So whatever gripes you have with social science do not translate.

[Nadiru]

Well, that's false. Water expands when it freezes because of the way the hydrogens atoms bond to the oxygen atom.

Yeah, except that displacement means less water is displaced than is used to make the ice. Now, I did check for some numbers on the displacement to size ratio and I did find that it isn't a significant amount of displacement, only about 3%. That said, thermal expansion is the killer here, and using ice to increase albedo is a palliative measure designed to reduce the amount of heat being transferred from the Sun to the Earth.

Yeah, almost everything he said in that paragraph is wrong on at least some level.

One thing wrong about ice replacement is hardly "everything being wrong." Upwelling is theoretically sound and we have both the deep sea capacity and the ability to push water upwards, CaCO2 and iron fertilization have already been proven out in the field, though iirc the guy who fertilized the ocean got arrested for it.

[Surfd]

Yeah, except that displacement means less water is displaced than is used to make the ice.

Incorrect. Assuming the mass of ice is floating, it will have absolutely no effect on the level of the water in question.

A floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its own weight. Since water expands when it freezes, one ounce of frozen water has a larger volume than one ounce of liquid water. A completely submerged ice cube weighing one ounce, for example, displaces MORE than one ounce of liquid water. The cube will rise until the volume remaining under the surface displaces only one ounce of water.

A floating Icecube will displace exactly the same volume of water required to make it, with the extra volume caused by the molecular expansion due to freezing remaining "above" the water's surface, therefore not displacing water (which is likely where that 3% number comes from).

[Nadiru]

Incorrect. Assuming the mass of ice is floating, it will have absolutely no effect on the level of the water in question.



A floating Icecube will displace exactly the same volume of water required to make it, with the extra volume caused by the molecular expansion due to freezing remaining "above" the water's surface, therefore not displacing water (which is likely where that 3% number comes from).

And when you take water and freeze it and then put it back on a landmass like Greenland or Antarctica, sea levels reduce, though not by that much unless we really put our backs into it. That said, I was thinking about it and came to the realization you could still make what's tantamount to an artificial glacier as far as albedo is concerned. Put a foundation down to the seafloor (challenging, but hardly impossible) and build a large section of flat surface held up by the foundation above sea level. Color the flat surface white, and then also put a layer of snow on it so if it melts there's still some reflecting action going on. The problem here is scale, but there's no reason why this wouldn't work, either. Not only does more light bounce off this new surface, keeping the surface above the water also creates an effective cooling spot for the water through the shade.

[Garnier Fructis]

Incorrect. Assuming the mass of ice is floating, it will have absolutely no effect on the level of the water in question.

Not exactly true in the context of sea ice. The sea has a lot of salt that brings up the density whilst the ice is still relatively 'pure' water, so when it melts it reduces the salinity of the seawater, thereby reducing the overall density and increasing the volume. The flip side is that if you can re-freeze the water but get the salt out and toss that back in the ocean, you'll reduce sea level. But the effect will basically be negligible either way.

[Garnier Fructis]

If you have a glass full of water with an ice cube, there will be some of the ice floating above the water. The volume of water displaced is equal to the volume of of the ice that is submerged. So, if you're implying freezing water and creating large icebergs could lower water levels, you're wrong. What raises water levels is ground ice melting and going into the ocean.

The water/ice cube thing is true if the ice has the same density as the rest of the water when melted, otherwise it's going to change density and volume, as in the case of the ocean. The better response is that this is basically negligible as far as sea level rise is concerned, because of melting land ice (as you mentioned) plus thermal expansion.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm referring to everything the EPA does. Sure, they try to run actual science but much of it is guesswork because they can't model complex systems exactly. That guesswork is then necessarily influenced by political pressure.

So sure, it's some pure science but there's also a portion that's not.

If not being able to model a complex system exactly is guesswork, then a giant amount of physics, astrophysics and engineering has just been reduced to guesswork.

[alexw]

I'm referring to everything the EPA does. Sure, they try to run actual science but much of it is guesswork because they can't model complex systems exactly. That guesswork is then necessarily influenced by political pressure.

So sure, it's some pure science but there's also a portion that's not.

Oh Jesus.... please don't comment on things you have no clue about.

Computer modelling is used in all branches of scientific inquiry both in the public and private sectors. From area's as diverse as airplane design, to drug design, to the design of the microchips of the computer you are using right now. None of that involves exact modelling because such a thing is impossible, models by their very nature use approximations to simplify the mathematical underpinnings that we use to describe reality. Yet those models are still extremely useful and none of it in any shape or form is guesswork.