Where did all the water go?!?

[imageel]

An interesting thread encompassing some broad subjects - here are 2 insights I can add -
1. I operate a couple of IP security type cameras that track meteors at night, they utilise similar s/w as the ANPR cameras but tuned for meteors, and these cameras are calibrated against a standard star catalog and worldwide multiple cameras are used to plot the expected trajectory of meteor fragments as was performed a while back for the one seen over Bristol with fragments located north at Winchcombe. One issue seen in the camera data was that the calibration drifted overnight, root cause is uncertain as to whether it is tectonic plate movement or thermal effects however it is quite significant -up to 3 arc seconds which approximates to about 1/3rd the diameter of the moon as typically seen in the UK. ...so what we see is in fact constantly moving!
2. In my more formative years I worked for a while at the Royal Post-Graduate Medical School assisting research into novel uses of dialysis e.g. treating smoke inhalation and similar. Part of my duties involved maintaining the machines being used in the main dialysis ward and one machine -a small portable one used for acute patients had an interesting background; it's development was funded by NASA who needed something to turn urine excreted by the astronauts into potable water since they'd calc'd they could not carry the payload of water required for some of the longer missions. So recycling water is nothing new!!

 

[Scruples]

It is really interesting, that a reply would start by a small recognition, but avoid the thrust of the argument - by changing ( warping ) the subject.

Quite happy to accept that you have a different view- and I respect that, even if I think it is a result of serious brain washing.
Climate change has become a "religion" and there are believers and non-believers.

I wonder what the inhabitants of Antartica would have said about our "beliefs" of global warming ? Suspect they would shake their heads in disbelief ! They may have made CO2 generators to bring on the warming.

Global warming is not the potential problem - it's the next ice age ( which is geologically overdue )
Ice age = NO FOOD - NO PEOPLE
On the up-side it would stop global warming !

Whilst climate change is believed and being acted on by the vast majority of governments and scientists, there will always a be a few, a very few, who will use disinformation, unsusantiated science and twisted logic to support their errorneous claims.

I have, in the past, wondered about climate change and have been a cynic, until the evidence became overwhelming and indeniable, then I switched views. I've not been brainwashed because I believe the world's scientific community on the subject. If there is any other evidence that would change my view I think I would have read it by now, and I haven't. Until I do, I will go with the real science and not the 'alternative' options.

 

[johna.clements]

It is really interesting, that a reply would start by a small recognition, but avoid the thrust of the argument - by changing ( warping ) the subject.

Quite happy to accept that you have a different view- and I respect that, even if I think it is a result of serious brain washing.
Climate change has become a "religion" and there are believers and non-believers.

I wonder what the inhabitants of Antartica would have said about our "beliefs" of global warming ? Suspect they would shake their heads in disbelief ! They may have made CO2 generators to bring on the warming.

Global warming is not the potential problem - it's the next ice age ( which is geologically overdue )
Ice age = NO FOOD - NO PEOPLE
On the up-side it would stop global warming !

I am not warping the subject merely disproving your belief that somethings may not effect climate change. Actions by individuals will have a small effect but if many people carry out actions then they become significant.

Antarctica has been glaciated for tens of millions of years. What inhabitants are you referring too.

 

[ajs]

I recall some years ago hearing about how scientists missed to physically be there to observe (it was at night, or something when they were at home) the first drip of a very viscous substance or fluid they'd set up in an experiment. The idea was to see how many years or decades it would take for a drip to happen in the substance in their experimental laboratory conditions.

Sounds like a slightly distorted account of the pitch drop experiment at the University of Queensland. It's been running 90 years. There have been several drops. There is a webcam on it but it broke down for one of the drops.

It's more of a demonstration than a real scientific enquiry. And no, they don't take it a salary simply to watch it all day, it sits on a shelf while they get on with their jobs.