John Cuthber

In spite of people saying that climate change isn't real. Yes it is. Very obviously. Are you somehow too biased to see that? At best, you do yourself little good by saying that predicting something isn't a prediction. If you are so laughably wrong about that (which is obvious) then why would anyone think you will be right about anything else?

If that was true you wouldn't be saying it's wrong. It predicted increasingly variable weather and a rise in temperature. Both predictions have come true. Ok, not a bad idea. But most of the CO2 emissions and energy/ resource consumption is due to people in the developed world where the birthrate is pretty much the same as the death rate. It's in the developing world where birth control could achieve most, but they are not the ones creating the problem. Unless you plan to cull rich Westerners, you still need to reduce consumption.

" Does a large gas plant fire threaten nearby towns due to atmospheric oxygen depletion " No

So, you are saying the water would be ice, but the temperature would rise to 127C Do you see why I still think you are wrong? The change in pressure would mean that, rather than melting, the water would sublime. Once that raised the local pressure above the triple point (about 5mmHg IIRC) , you could get melting to form liquid water. The heat flux involved would still be impractical. Eventually you might reach a situation where all the water froze out at the poles and the equatorial temperature fluctuated wildly.

What race am I? Human. "Race" as the word is commonly used isn't a very meaningful concept scientifically.

I doubt it. The big difference between the Earth and the Moon is water. Your scenario would require that the phenomenal amount of heat needed to melt an ocean of ice was supplied every day and removed every night.

It's true that most people don't fully understand how loud a bomb is. So what? The purpose of a bomb is to terrify, maim and kill, not to make a noise. Imagine that you could make a bomb that was just as destructive as normal, but a lot quieter. Would it be less of a problem somehow? The noise isn't relevant.

Am I the only one wondering if that should be interpreted as three questions? How will the pH of a solution change when a base is added to an acidic environment, neutral or very basic ?

Initially, on many planets, the best thing to do with the basalt would be to hide under it. We really need oxygen to live. The easiest way to get that, in many environments would be to electrolyse water (or to get plants to do much the same thing). If we have energy to do that, we don't need hydrogen as a fuel. We might even end up running that process in reverse. If we use electrolysis to get oxygen then we use up water (which we also need) and get hydrogen (which we don't). So it would make sense to react then hydrogen with some mineral to recover the hydrogen as water. For example, you can use iron ore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron#Chemistry and get iron as a by-product.

Which planet?

I'm sorry, but to me this " Maybe many people think bombs are not so bad because they never heard how LOUD they are" seems silly. I heard the Paddington bomb go off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_station_and_Paddington_station_bombings And I saw the aftermath of this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Staples_Corner_bombing It really wasn't the noise that struck me as important, so much as the damage, and disruption

It might be, but only if the planet has plenty of water and hydrogen is only really useful if you are doing fusion or have lots of oxygen.

Some models are better than others. For example you could model scientists as children. That would be a very silly model. dark energy noun PHYSICS a theoretical form of energy postulated to act in opposition to gravity and to occupy the entire universe, accounting for most of the energy in it and causing its expansion to accelerate. dark matter noun ASTRONOMY (in some cosmological theories) non-luminous material which is postulated to exist in space and which could take either of two forms: weakly interacting particles ( cold dark matter ) or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang ( hot dark matter ). Does that mean we are all dead?

In principle, it gives you a "hydrogen mine"- you get energy from minerals; a bit like coal but (in principle) carbon free. The question is, how much energy (and/ or CO2 production) does it take to get the H2. Thus far, nobody knows.

OK, Industrial chemists are allowed to know that nitrating things can cause trouble. OK, so it's OK to teach schoolkids how to make explosives? People work with cornflour... There's no way to know. But it's fair to say that you can nitrate sawdust...

That's a good question. I wonder if they measured the concentration by the osmotic pressure or freezing point or some such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colligative_properties

You just broke my irony meter. Would you, by any chance, research it by checking the internet? How do you know that? Is it because someone told you that nitrating things ...

That's not difficult. Drill a deep hole. Add water.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Do you know that healthcare in the US costs roughly twice what it does in most of the Western world? (and the outcomes are arguably worse)

What!? No, if I was wary of something, I'd seek to find out more about what is happening.

I'd look out for people trying to pretend that a hospital is a business. It's unfair to judge a book by its cover but- sometimes that's the only option you have. So, I'd be wary of people talking about "customers" or "clients" rather than patients. I'd also be wary of anyone who says "it's simple...". As CharonY has pointed out, this problem is hard.

Stop pretending that hospitals are like businesses. Hospitals are not hotels. You choose your hotel, but fate usually chooses your hospital. So a set of "league tables" for various measures of "care" (however you measure it) can't influence your decision. So all they do is- as you say, penalise those who already have the hardest jobs. Also, make very sure that your "key point indicators" are not driving the wrong behaviour. For example, if someone is measuring "waiting time" then hospitals will learn to "game" the system. If "waiting time" stops when they are seen by a nurse, the hospital will hire a nurse to look at patients and then walk away. Obviously, that's not what the medical profession wants, but it's what the "business" wants.

In physics, if there's an "anomaly" in your results, something is wrong. I'm beginning to see the point of the folk who post that scientists are just as stubborn as the God squad. Newton was not right. He was close, but not right. We don't have to "hero worship" him into being "sort of right".

Did anyone here do that? OK, strictly, it makes more sense to say that the precession of mercury (for example) shows that Newton was wrong. Einstein came up with a better option. No GPS

Interestingly, one of the most important things Einstein did was show that Newton was wrong. Should Einstein not have done that because Newton was dead? It's amusing to note that I didn't say Einstein was wrong. I said he was right, and that's how you could tell that Beecee hadn't quoted him. Did you actually read what I said?