I don't know about the disposal of rubber, but the production of rubber has historically enslaved and destroyed entire populations and environmentally wrecked whole regions of the earth in Africa and South America...
I'm not an expert, but it's a very complex global system with moisture in the atmosphere sometimes falling as rain/snow, collecting in rivers and lakes, going into ground water/aquifers, flowing into the oceans, and sometimes just staying as moist air. If one area isn't getting it's usual rainfall, quite often another area is getting more, but it can also be that the moisture is just in other parts of that complex system. A lot is driven by high- and low-pressure systems, air temperature, water temperature, etc.
In my area of southern California, we've had some major, extended droughts. But the rising temperature of the Pacific has caused the air to hold more moisture, and we've also had some "atmospheric river" storms that drop insane amounts of rain. So even though we get an average of 13 inches of rain a year, we got more than 13 inches in just February, and we're up to almost 31 inches for the season. It wouldn't be surprising if we didn't get anymore until late in the year though.
Some of that rain went into snowpack, some into reservoirs, some into ground water, but we're close to the coast and all of it will go back to the ocean. Did we get rain that would normally have gone elsewhere, or was it rain that wouldn't normally have formed? I think it's likely hard to say, but maybe there are meteorologists or others who know more reading this.
Climate change is moving water around, not creating or destroying it. Warmer air holds more water, so overall, the atmosphere can hold (and at times drop) more water than before. Permanent ice is melting as well, so that puts a bit more fresh water into the air and ocean. The water in the atmosphere is constantly circling the globe, forced largely by the rotation of the earth. Warmer temperature also makes for more evapotranspiration, so more fresh surface water is pulled into the air. But that same water will eventually fall elsewhere.
The sun is the source of energy that drives wind, rain, and evaporation. When you trap more of that energy with GHGs, it just turns up the volume for all of those things. There’s always seasonal and geographic variability, but the extremes increase because all those phenomena are solar powered.
Cool, that's more of what I meant when I said "where is it going?" I didn't think it was disappearing; I more meant, "Where is it being stored or released?" Makes sense why there would be more of it when precipitation does show up, given that hotter air can store more.
I'm still curious, though, if certain local patterns are moving off to other locations. I'll have to look into that aspect, now that I kind of have an idea what to look for.
There’s been talk of some crops being able to be grown further north or south. But most of the weather patterns of a region are a function of proximity to ocean, predominant winds, and topography. It’s important not to confuse weather and climate. For a given drought or flood people may want to point to climate change as a cause, but it’s only going to amplify patterns that already existed.
Record droughts in some places, record rains in others. Regular patterns breaking down means the extremes get more extreme, the swings get more rapid. That's not good news for anything.
It also means areas that have, over centuries, ecologically, culturally and technologically adapted to lots of rain are now hit by droughts, and vice versa.
There was an air-quality researcher who tried getting samples in Toronto, of pollen.
He couldn't find the pollen.
Only tires-particles.
The significance of the changes in tires, since the 1970's, is astonishing.
What tires can do, nowadays, .. outright unbelievable, compared with way back when.
Look at how far over modern bicycle-racers can lean, compared with images of the old races, when their tires hadn't anywhere near the grip they've got now..
but they're still being poured into the atmosphere at stunning rate..
All the wear of your tires, as the tread gets thinner, its going into the ecology, either the air or the waters or the land around the roads,
& then you've got the oceans-of-used-tires which often can't be recycled, or cost too much to be recycled..
There has been extensive study on this stuff, btw, dig a bit & you'll find some in-depth stuff!
Imagine you are with a friend on the beach., side by side on the water and a big wave comes. Do you fell less pressure because your friends is by your side?
whether you feel less pressure, or whether there is less pressures, are two completely different things. the question was about 100% reception, and it's fair to ask, so far, no one's answered it, you know, scientifically.
Radios receiving signals don't just siphon the signal off lol
What you're asking would only really happen with wireless Internet service and it's not because of the wireless signal, but because the overall bandwidth diminishes the more people connect to it.
Actually, the waves emitted by the radio tower are enough for a receiving device to generate a small electrical current just through the oscillations of the propagating signal.
The current produced in the antenna does (induce a field which goes on to) cancel the wave out a bit. Not enough to be noticeable in the far field, for a normal-sized antenna, but some. Conservation of energy, right?
It’s like solar energy. You either absorb it with a panel, or it goes to “waste”. You’re not really stealing it from someone else, as long as you’re not getting too much in the way
Usong your analogy i think Ops question was really if you have a stack of transparent solar panels will the panel below get less power and the answer is of course it will. If one antenna is behind another there will be a small reduction in the power of the signal reaching it, probably very small but with enough of them you could theoretically construct a faraday cage of sorts.
Yup. It's typically amplified quite a lot in the receiver, and the vast majority of power transmitted never is received, so it doesn't usually matter, but it's not a dumb question.
A laymans opinion on the challenge: Waves lose energy, and the exact placement of antennas will matter. I don't know what the mechanism is called, but we don't place wind turbines right next to each other. That is afaik because each turbine takes some of the energy out of a larger chunk of the wind-wave in an 'bubble' around it, so we place them with optimal distance according to efficiency of that mechanism. If I'm right the effect will probably be minimal.
Anyway, just a stab at an interesting thought..
Yep. It's called near field and far field in radio. In the far field you can approximate it as a beam from the transmitter, while in near field it's magnets and things can absolutely interact. You never want to put up a stand-alone antenna in the near field of something conductive. Those big tower antennas actually incorporate the ground as a critical part of their design, because of that and the non-negligible conductivity of ground water.
How side-by-side are we talking? If the antennas are closer than their size, yeah, it won't necessarily work the same way because they'll act like one antenna. If they're too far apart for "near field" effects (or if your antenna was tiny relative to the wave to start with, like with AM radio) it won't matter, because the wave in question will just kind of ooze around any obstruction, and received power will just go with inverse square of distance to source again.
In practice, it's unlikely to matter so much how loud the signal is, because (unless you're using a crystal radio) you are definitely going to amplify it quite a lot before it's useful, anyway. More of concern is how loud it is relative to any random noise that's present, which is not so dependent on antenna area.
Edit: I suppose if it's between you and the source, it will dim the signal a tiny, tiny little bit. Not the way a bigger thing can cast a shadow, though; think more like a slightly dirty lens.
Ask Science
Oldest