• Fleur_@hilariouschaos.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Assuming constant temperature, would the ice’s melting accelerate or decelerate as the total volume of remaining ice reduces?

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I think it would decelerate, as there’s less surface area.

      Not that it matters, since the temperature is affected by the ice going away, so it’s an impossible scenario anyways.

      • Fleur_@hilariouschaos.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Do you think that the average temperature of the ice increases as it melts, decreasing the time it takes for remaining ice to melt?

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Only the average temperature of the parts close to the surface, which is why the surface area is so important.

          But by reducing the albedo the air gets warmer, which makes the ice melt faster.

        • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The less ice there is the more heat remaining ice can absorb. It would only be true under constant temperature though.

          • Fleur_@hilariouschaos.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I was under the impression that with the ice shrinking, the surface area decreases. Therefore the contact area between the ice and the surrounding environment also decreases, slowing down the speed of melting. At the same time though the average temperature of the ice will have increased as it melts so the amount of energy required to melt is less, speeding up melting. I might just have to start measuring the speed at which ice cubes melt lmao.

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’ve never seen an Olympic swimming pool. And even if I had, I wouldn’t have a sense for its volume unless it was empty. Preferred units for water volumes are million acre feet or cubic kilometers annually. Or cubic feet per second or cubic meters per second. Or if you really want to relate to the layperson, I also accept cubic kegs per fortnight.

      • pezhore@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        For you and @Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca, from llama3.2:

        So, approximately 8,144,000 football fields would weigh around 273 billion metric tons.

        • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Holy shit. That’s too big to wrap my head around. What if we tried those yellow Blue Bird school busses?

          • pezhore@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            A standard Blue Bird bus weighs around 10-15 tons (10,000 - 15,000 kg), depending on the model and configuration. Let’s assume an average weight of 12.5 tons (12,500 kg) for this calculation.

            Now, let’s divide the total weight by the weight of a single bus:

            273 billion metric tons ÷ 12,500 kg/bus ≈ 21,800,000 buses

            So, approximately 21.8 million Blue Bird school buses would weigh around 273 billion metric tons.

            Keep in mind that this is another purely theoretical calculation for entertainment purposes only.