• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/

If you scroll down you will see how many bombs we are adding.

Four billion, huh? And that's just the 0.8 degrees since 1970? So we're talking about ten billion nuclear bombs.

And if my random search is right and Hiroshima was 60,000,000 Megajoules.. math math math...

6x1023 joules. Slightly more than the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Simultaneously terrifying and amazing.
 
Two degrees doesn't sound like much, so how much actual heat is that? Across the entire atmosphere and the oceans, how many calories does it take to increase it all by 2 degrees? How many joules? How many nuclear bombs?
The amount of energy is so large it’s almost inconceivable on human scales.
Very rough calculation:
Surface area of the earth
5.1 *10^14 m^2
2 deg warming is ~6W/m^2 forcing,
100 year = 3.1*10^9 seconds

Assuming linear increase in forcing from the current 2W/m^2 we get an average of 4W/m^2 over 100 years
2*10^15W (J/s) * 3.1*10^9 s
~6*10^24J


Using these for comparison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)

The energy is equivalent to
A Chicxulub impact every 10 years
A Krakatoa size volcanic eruption every 1.2 hours
A Tsar Bomba size bomb every 20 min
30 “Little Boy” atomic bombs per second
1 000 times the energy contained in the worlds petroleum reserves
10 000 times the energy contained of the worlds uranium reserves (current reactor technology)
0.02% of the kinetic energy of the moon in its orbit around the Earth

edited to fox some numbers. I made a mistake in the number of Krakatoa eruptions and used that as the basis for the bomb blasts.
 
Last edited:
There were rapid temperature variations in north America around the 8,000 years before present time, my college professor Olga Sofer-Babyshev believed that is was related to extinction of mega fauna in north america more than any human predation. When your food source dies, and it's temperature zone is now 500 miles north or south of the location you are. Well they can't exactly migrate that quickly. Nor can the plants. And yes animals do migrate great distances, however mega fauna need something to browse on the way.
 
There were rapid temperature variations in north America around the 8,000 years before present time, my college professor Olga Sofer-Babyshev believed that is was related to extinction of mega fauna in north america more than any human predation. When your food source dies, and it's temperature zone is now 500 miles north or south of the location you are. Well they can't exactly migrate that quickly. Nor can the plants. And yes animals do migrate great distances, however mega fauna need something to browse on the way.
The flip side to that rather simplistic view is the depletion of the megafauna by humans caused an ecological trophic cascade which deteriorated large continental wide ecosystems, effecting climate and that effects vegetation which further depletes the already decimated megafauna.....your downward spiral begins. (and doesn't end before many species are extinct)

It is not unlike what climate scientists use to explain positive feedbacks....heat warms permafrost, which releases CO2 and methane, which are greenhouse gasses trapping more heat, which further warms the climate, which releases more gasses...and so on....until a negative feedback is reached.
 
Last edited:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/

If you scroll down you will see how many bombs we are adding.

Somewhat different than my result. Some of the differences can be accounted for by:

My method for estimating forcing is VERY rough, and now that I think about it is assumes continued warming past 2 Deg. for warming to stop at 2 degrees radiative forcing needs to come back to zero.

They appear to be working from ocean heat content in the top 2000m, so total heat would be higher


We are looking at different amounts of warming (~0.5 deg C over the last 40 years vs 2 Deg C discussed)
 
It is not unlike what climate scientists use to explain positive feedbacks....heat warms permafrost, which releases CO2 and methane, which are greenhouse gasses trapping more heat, which further warms the climate, which releases more gasses...and so on....until a negative feedback is reached.

What is the odds of the "methane monster" waking up? It is my impression that most scientist think it is a monster but that it is very unlikely to wake up any time soon. And then we have the alarmist like the blog Arctic News who seems to think we are more or less doomed. It is a such bewildering subject that I can not get my head around it.
 
What is the odds of the "methane monster" waking up? It is my impression that most scientist think it is a monster but that it is very unlikely to wake up any time soon.

As I understand it:

2C average temperature increase, not that likely.

4C increase, probable, but maybe not.

6C increase, we are all doomed.

assuming that CO2 peaks in the next 5 or so years and then rapidly falls back to levels round about where we were 30 years ago or lower.

We're on track to almost definitely hit a ~2.5-3C average increase in global temps by about 2100.

Basically we're all fine, our children are probably fine, our grandchildren are **********.

The youtube video I linked a few posts back it goes into more detail about all of this, is about 15 minutes total and is well worth a watch.
 
What is the odds of the "methane monster" waking up? It is my impression that most scientist think it is a monster but that it is very unlikely to wake up any time soon. And then we have the alarmist like the blog Arctic News who seems to think we are more or less doomed. It is a such bewildering subject that I can not get my head around it.
I am probably not the best person to answer that question. There are other people on this forum far more knowledgeable on permafrost and methane clathrate emissions and when they might start kicking in. Part of the methane "monster" I do have some information on though. Emissions from livestock and such could be handled by simply changing to a sane form of animal husbandry. Specifically a change from a CAFO system to a properly managed pasture system. That would actually result in a net reduction of methane, because the grassland/grazier biome is a net methane sink (conversion to CO2 then to humus in the soil by way of plants) due to methanotrophs. That could help, but I doubt it would be enough if we wait until the runaway effect starts kicking in. Likely simply wouldn't be fast enough to draw down all that extra methane. Of course the sun would help too, and soil methanotrophs would likely increase dramatically. So once again probably better to ask someone else if it would be enough to mitigate that "monster". I suspect no.

A more detailed discussion can be found here: Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function

Still a lot of research that needs to be done though.
 
The flip side to that rather simplistic view is the depletion of the megafauna by humans caused an ecological trophic cascade which deteriorated large continental wide ecosystems, effecting climate and that effects vegetation which further depletes the already decimated megafauna.....your downward spiral begins. (and doesn't end before many species are extinct)

It is not unlike what climate scientists use to explain positive feedbacks....heat warms permafrost, which releases CO2 and methane, which are greenhouse gasses trapping more heat, which further warms the climate, which releases more gasses...and so on....until a negative feedback is reached.

Excuse me, I don't think you know much about paleo botany and the impact of pre-agricultural societies.

Your proposal is ridiculous, the impact humans of pre-invasion north america was very low.

just more athropocentric nonsense RBF. Next you will say hunting helped create the extinction events.

how exactly did the pre-columbian humans do this?
 
As I understand it:

2C average temperature increase, not that likely.

4C increase, probable, but maybe not.

6C increase, we are all doomed.

assuming that CO2 peaks in the next 5 or so years and then rapidly falls back to levels round about where we were 30 years ago or lower.

Common misperception.....even if we flat lined with zero emission CO2 levels are not going to fall back to where they were in any human scale time span.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

The climate will eventually reach a new equilibrium and then CO2 levels gradually fall over a very long time.

Short of physically removing C02 from the atmosphere ...this is not a reversable change.

Methane falls out in a decade or so....CO2 does not....it stays in play.

THAT is the problem...it's cumulative.
 
Excuse me, I don't think you know much about paleo botany and the impact of pre-agricultural societies.

Your proposal is ridiculous, the impact humans of pre-invasion north america was very low.

just more athropocentric nonsense RBF. Next you will say hunting helped create the extinction events.

how exactly did the pre-columbian humans do this?
Yes I would claim that. [1]

But before we go too off topic and get all our posts moved. Let's direct the conversation to AGW. Let's suppose we were to do nothing about AGW and the worst scenarios related to AGW were to actually happen. Even maybe the 6+ degree C warming that basically makes the majority of the planet uninhabitable by humans. The mass extinctions that would have resulted by that climate change, wouldn't they have been caused by humans? Even though we didn't actually hunt or otherwise kill those species directly? In that case we would have caused an ecological cascade that ultimately caused most species to go extinct. ie yes the climate did it, but we are the ones who caused the climate change.

In a similar way likely we humans caused the megafauna extinctions. Not directly, but by changing the numbers and behavior of certain keystone species we likely triggered an ecological trophic cascade that ultimately was the pressure that finished the job.
 
Last edited:
It's a very long process of weathering that gets it down.
Here is another article by David Archer
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/

and a good article from Yale.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...te-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

As to getting it out sooner...

This has some promise

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/10...rbon-dioxide-emissions-directly-from-the-air/

http://archive.onearth.org/article/the-rock-that-ate-co2

This is a later article that I was unaware of that shows promise

Carbon capture: Making use of minerals
Date:
May 22, 2013
Source:
The Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR)
Summary:
Ammonium salts could provide a viable way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via carbon mineralization, studies suggest.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130522131020.htm


Concrete and other materials could be engineered to absorb Co2

http://engr.uncc.edu/newsletters/2013-fall-review/capturing-co2-concrete

Plants do a decent job of capturing carbon but they don't sequester it for long.
Certainly as covered in the thread on agriculture practices, changes would help but not at the scale needed.

Bottom line we have altered the climate out at least 3,000 years - this is a done deal...no going back.

Going forward it's a matter of coping plus trying to at some point get to a carbon neutral stage of civilization so as to stabilize at a new climate regime perhaps around 2C warmer than the 20th century average.

The the nasty that may really bite sooner than later is ocean acidification which too often gets overlooked.

Sea level rise which looked to be quite a ways out as far as tangible impact....is all of a sudden getting a lot of attention as the Antarctic seems to be reacting faster than anticipated.

Interesting experiment we are conducting on our biome and physical earth/ocean/atmosphere chemistry. :rolleyes:
 
There were rapid temperature variations in north America around the 8,000 years before present time, my college professor Olga Sofer-Babyshev believed that is was related to extinction of mega fauna in north america more than any human predation. When your food source dies, and it's temperature zone is now 500 miles north or south of the location you are. Well they can't exactly migrate that quickly. Nor can the plants.

There are also speculations that human deforestation and agricultural land use changes may have been at the root of this feedback system as well.

http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/early-climate-change/

And yes animals do migrate great distances, however mega fauna need something to browse on the way.

rumor has it they were limited to dial-up connections and preferred the RapidRaptor browser system. :)
 
I thought that CO2 dissipated in ~50years or so.

:eye-poppi

you learn something new every day.

That is a common reaction. for small levels of emissions that is an accurate assessment of atmospheric residence time for CO2. When we start talking about multiple tens of gigatonnes per year for extended periods of time, however, it overwhelms the natural decay mechanisms, greatly enhancing and extending half-life/residency.

"The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2" - https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf
 
This is kind of alarming. You know those holes they found in Siberia last year? It seems they are caused by methane explosions.

Siberia’s Permafrost Is Exploding. Is Alaska’s Next?

Last summer, giant mysterious craters discovered by reindeer herders in a remote section of northern Siberia captured the world’s attention. Upon closer inspection, it was obvious these craters formed recently with some explosive force behind them. Since then, there have been further scientific excursions to the craters, including this one in November:




According to measurements made by Russian scientists, methane concentration at the bottom of one of the holes was thousands of times higher than in the regular atmosphere. A more thorough recent expedition identified “dozens” of new holes, all of which apparently formed in the last year or two.

The Siberian holes draw into question the near-term stability of Arctic permafrost, which traps enough carbon, if fully unleashed, to double atmospheric concentrations and potentially push global warming into a frightening new phase. Scientists are quite certain it will take at least a century for that to happen in a worst-case scenario, but it’s clear that the release has already begun.

A recent study estimated continued warming would produce an additional 35-205 billon tons of carbon emissions (about 2-10 percent of current global totals) from permafrost by 2100. The wide range reflects how little we still know about the response of permafrost to increased temperatures. Since the permafrost thaw is already in progress, it could be difficult to slow down: Even a sharp cutback in emissions from cities and cars may only be able to cut those numbers in half. With the atmosphere only able to hold another 400 billion tons or so before we’re committed to a rise in global temperatures of more than 2 degree Celsius, the point after which “dangerous” impacts become much more likely.
 
Trakar
That is a common reaction. for small levels of emissions that is an accurate assessment of atmospheric residence time for CO2. When we start talking about multiple tens of gigatonnes per year for extended periods of time, however, it overwhelms the natural decay mechanisms, greatly enhancing and extending half-life/residency.

"The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2" - https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/...plications.pdf

The tricky part Ambrosia is understanding that while tracing an individual CO2 molecule will show decay in a relatively short span ( ie picked up by plants or animals or the ocean ).....that molecule is in an exchange cycle....so the as a whole the CO2 in the atmosphere accumulates even tho any one molecule move out from the atmosphere.

We are mining the results of millions of years of carbon sequestration in the form of fossil fuels ( think dead plants and animals ) and tossing it back into play in the atmosphere where it adds to the existing carbon load warming the planet.

Our increasing the carbon load does not mean the planetary systems can sequester any faster.....tho in fact ....they've done beyond the call of duty in mitigating our carelessness.

First world wealth was built on cheap energy from fossil fuels when the risks of doing so was only a lab curiousity.

To keep a relatively stable climate - we need to move off that practice and leave most of the fossil reserves in the ground...even John D Rockefeller's heir stated the same thing recently.

Heirs to Rockefeller oil fortune divest from fossil fuels over climate ...
www.theguardian.com/.../rockefeller-heirs-divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change‎
22 Sep 2014 ... Heirs to Standard Oil fortune join campaign that will withdraw a total of $50bn ... The heirs to the fabled Rockefeller oil fortune withdrew their funds from fossil .... Money will go where it achieves the best return unless a conscious .. .

John D Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, moved America out of whale oil and into petroleum,” Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, said in a statement. “We are quite convinced that if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ller-heirs-divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change

We understand the risks now....tricky part is what to do about it.

BTW this is a good series

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents
 
Last edited:
We are mining the results of millions of years of carbon sequestration in the form of fossil fuels ( think dead plants and animals ) and tossing it back into play in the atmosphere where it adds to the existing carbon load warming the planet.

I'm reasonably confident that we can work out ways to reduce CO2 in atmosphere if we can first stop adding massive amounts. (we're not going to spend lots of money of removing CO2 unless we've first recognised it as enough of a problem to stop making more of it in the first place)

In theory we could potentially reduce net CO2 slightly every year and over 25 years that would help a lot.

I suspect we won't stop churning out massive amounts of CO2 until after we've turned some of our farmland into drought wasteland and we see the first water riots, but I hope I'm wrong.

The really sad thing is that we already have the technology we need to do this. People in general would rather not change anything when it's not a problem *right now* because to do so would be a bit inconvenient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom