Editing 1885: Ensemble Model

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 19: Line 19:
  
 
;…dogs run slightly faster
 
;…dogs run slightly faster
This is where the comic diverges from reality; there is no reason to have the locomotion speed of dogs as a parameter in a usual weather model{{citation needed}}.
+
This is where the comic diverges from reality; there is no reason to have the locomotion speed of dogs as a parameter in a usual weather model.  
 
The speed of dogs might be a parameter in a wildlife model, where the speed of a predator might affect the predator/prey ratios.  In terms of weather models, dogs traditionally chase cats, so running faster might affect the number of cats.  Cats prey on birds, which in turn eat insects.  So faster dogs might increase the number of birds, reducing the number of butterflies.  Butterflies in turn affect the weather through the {{w|Butterfly effect|butterfly effect}} (that is that the movement of a butterflies wings may change the development of tornados, or other weather, in difficult to predict ways, as for instance with the [https://wiki.lspace.org/Quantum_weather_butterflies quantum weather butterfly]).
 
The speed of dogs might be a parameter in a wildlife model, where the speed of a predator might affect the predator/prey ratios.  In terms of weather models, dogs traditionally chase cats, so running faster might affect the number of cats.  Cats prey on birds, which in turn eat insects.  So faster dogs might increase the number of birds, reducing the number of butterflies.  Butterflies in turn affect the weather through the {{w|Butterfly effect|butterfly effect}} (that is that the movement of a butterflies wings may change the development of tornados, or other weather, in difficult to predict ways, as for instance with the [https://wiki.lspace.org/Quantum_weather_butterflies quantum weather butterfly]).
  
Line 37: Line 37:
  
 
;…swimming pools are carbonated
 
;…swimming pools are carbonated
A simple calculation reveals this as a serious {{w|Greenhouse effect|greenhouse}} problem. In the United States alone there are no less than 5,000,000 private owned pools. Conservatively assumed, a volume of 25,000 liters per pool gives 125 billion liters of carbonated soda. According to Wikipedia the U.S. sales reached around 30 billion bottles of water in 2008 (including non-carbonated water) which is much less than all of the pool water. While all those bottles are not considered to have an impact on the greenhouse effect, this scenario gets even worse. Open a bottle of carbonated water and pour the content into a glass. Sooner or later the bubbles fade, meaning you have to open the next bottle and pour it in and so on. In a pool at the bottom the pressure is high enough to hold the carbon dioxide, but on the surface it behaves like the glass. So, while a glass needs new carbonated water every two hours, or ten times per day, it would be about three times per day for the pool, which leads to 1095 times per year. The total number in this scenario would be 125 trillion liters of carbonated soda, ejecting carbon dioxide, per year. Even taking into account the pressure at the bottom of the pool: Randall has shown in {{what if|88|Soda Sequestration}} this effect would be minimal.
+
A simple calculation reveals this as a serious {{w|Greenhouse effect|greenhouse}} problem. In the United States there are not less than 5,000,000 private owned pools. Conservatively assumed a volume of 25,000 liters per pool gives 125 billion liters of carbonated soda. According to Wikipedia the U.S. sales reached around 30 billion bottles of water in 2008 (including non carbonated water) which is surely much less than all the pool water. While all those bottles are not considered to have an impact on the green house effect this scenario is getting even worse. Open a bottle of carbonated water and fill the content into glasses. More or less soon the sprinkling is over, meaning you have to open the next bottle and so on. In a pool at the bottom the pressure is high enough to hold the carbon dioxide but on the surface it behaves like the glass. So, while a glass needs new carbonated water every two hours, or ten times per day, let's say it's three times per day for the pool which leads to one thousand times per year. The total number in this scenario would be 125 trillion liters of carbonated soda, ejecting carbon dioxide, per year. But stop: The carbon dioxide used for artificial carbonated water is taken from the air and because of the pressure at the bottom of the pool it doesn't release all back this should have a positive effect. But as Randall has shown in {{what if|88|Soda Sequestration}} this effect would be minimal.
  
 
;…sliced bread, after being banned in January 1943, was never re-legalized.
 
;…sliced bread, after being banned in January 1943, was never re-legalized.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)