[TheForge] The Siberian Hole. (Was: Slack tank.) ..POL OT

[Bruce .]

I posted this nearly four years ago.  How time flies.

I just thought all of you who still don't believe in climate change ought
to catch this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/scientists-may-have-cracked-the-giant-siberian-crater-mystery-and-the-news-isnt-good/

The gist is that that mysterious hole in Siberia (or three holes, now, it
seems) was apparently due to rapid release of methane trapped in frozen
soil.  I reckon the methane was probably in the form of methane clathrate
(or hydrate) that became unstable as the ground warmed.  See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

Well, we know the polar ice caps are melting.  Now we find that methane
will explode out of the ground when the soil warms in those regions.  I
hadn't actually expected this, but it makes sense.  The hydrates in the
ocean sediment will take longer to be warmed due to the massive heat sink
that is the ocean.  That is not true of the land, however, where
temperature changes can be very local.  Furthermore, methane is a
greenhouse gas, so these methane releases will exacerbate climate change.

I'm actually rather glad at this point I have no children or grandchildren
to see this out.  I'm rather hoping I get to live out my life before the
next extinction event -- the one that claims humans.

Bruce
NJ


On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Bruce Freeman <freemab222 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am a scientist, but not a climate scientist.  I have for years
> considered the world to be going the wrong way in terms of
> ever-increasing human population, continued extinctions of species,
> and every-increasing reliance on fossil fuels.  Frankly, I believe the
> human race is doomed by its own stupidity, but that doesn't matter
> much to me because I will be long gone before the cataclysm.   I have
> no offspring nor relatives closer by blood than a second cousin, so it
> will not be me or mine who suffers from this, but only you or yours.
>
> (Is that cold?  Shouldn't I be concerned about all children, not just
> my own?  Well, the entrenched powers that be have essentially decided
> that anyone interested in working with kids must be a pedophile.
> Therefore, though I do volunteer work, I refuse to do any work with
> children even though I might find it quite rewarding.  Conservatives
> will blame "those Liberals" for this state of affairs, but  being
> Liberal myself, I know it actually to be due to entrenched powers
> seeking to increase their power, which is about as non-Liberal as one
> can get.  But all this should be saved for another flame war.)
>
> It is a FACT that "global warming" IS occurring.*  In addition, I have
> seen too much evidence NOT to believe that atmospheric carbon dioxide
> is increasing.  That constitutes correlation, and any good scientist
> (which by no means includes all scientists) recognizes that
> correlation does not imply causation.**
>
> However, there is every reason to believe that an increase in
> atmospheric carbon dioxide WILL LEAD to global warming.  This is due
> to the infrared absorbance spectrum of carbon dioxide and other
> atmospheric gases -- the well known greenhouse effect.  Light of short
> wavelength (high energy) such as visible and UV impinge upon the
> earth, which heats up and re-radiates IR light (low energy, long
> wavelength).
>
> With no atmosphere, all this IR would radiate out into space.  The air
> absorbs some small amount of IR. (I don't have the spectra in front of
> me, but I recall that oxygen in the "near infrared" -- the higher
> energy end of the IR spectrum -- whereas nitrogen doesn't absorb until
> the "far infrared".)  Since we wouldn't care to do without a
> nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, we can take that amount of absorbance as
> "baseline."   (BTW, this has nothing to do with the "hole in the ozone
> layer", a common misconception.)
>
> The Wikipedia article on air gives the following tabulation:
> Gas                                      Volume
> Nitrogen (N2)                   780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
> Oxygen (O2)                      209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
> Argon (Ar)                      9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
> Carbon dioxide (CO2)    390 ppmv (0.039%)
> [plus other gases at lesser amounts.]
> Not included in above dry atmosphere:
> Water vapor (H2O)       ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at
> surface
>
> Note that water vapor absorbs a lot of IR, and some say that it cannot
> be disregarded as a contributor to the greenhouse effect.  This is
> very true, but irrelevant.  Water vapor varies widely due to
> temperature changes, etc., and therefore its contribution to IR
> absorbance is not constant. In any event, it is not something that
> human activity increases -- except perhaps insofar as atmospheric
> water vapor increases due to increased surface temperature.
>
> By contrast, when carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, it pretty much
> stays there.  It can be removed by dissolution in water, by absorption
> on alkali (which is probably irrelevant), or its incorporation into
> plant material by photosynthesis.  Carbon dioxide is less soluble in
> warm water than in cold water, so increased ocean temperature may
> result in increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>
> Hence, the only ways to lower carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are to
> vastly increase plant growth or to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
>
> Now, pretend for a moment that the global warming activists managed to
> convince everybody on Earth, especially those in positions of power,
> that atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels was
> ultimately responsible for global warming, and that it continuance
> would result in severe catastrophe.  What would they do?  Well, they'd
> make lots of noise about doing stuff, but ultimately they would do
> nothing.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase till whatever
> result that causes happened.
>
> Why do I say this?  Because I understand human nature.  Look at the
> economy.  Look at all the lip service given it.  Is anything
> substantial being done by either party?  Well, they'd have you think
> so, but ultimately NO politician will advocate true austerity.  (It's
> not commonly appreciated that even while Nazi Germany was losing the
> war the Nazi govt. was very careful to maintain production of consumer
> goods so as to avoid austerity measures, despite the fact that
> curtailing their production would have freed up factories and workers
> for munitions production.)  People don't like to confront ugly
> reality, and will make every excuse not to do so, or not to do so in
> any meaningful way.  This same psychology will prevent any meaningful
> policy changes to reduce significantly the consumption of fossil
> fuels.
>
> But I've saved the real cataclysm for last.  People see soda water
> every day without appreciating its implications.  People paddle their
> boats through marshes, stirring up "rotten egg" smells of hydrogen
> sulfide, without appreciating its implications.  Few people outside
> the petroleum industry have ever heard of hydrocarbon hydrates,
> including methane hydrate, but the end may come as a result of it.
> Carbon dioxide (which will suffocate you and will cause enhanced
> greenhouse effect), hydrogen sulfide (which not only stinks, but is
> more toxic than cyanide gas), and methane (believe to exist in vast
> amounts as a hydrate at the bottom of oceans) may someday upwell from
> the oceans into the atmosphere as a result of changes in the earths
> temperature, global or local.  If this occurs in a modest way, it WILL
> increase the greenhouse effect and may lead to a further accelerating
> increase thereto.  If it occurs massively in one fell cataclysm, it
> will poison the atmosphere or perhaps even render it explosive.
>
> Meanwhile, even if humanity recognizes this probability, we are NOT
> going to make any changes to policies because it might cause true
> austerity and, heaven forbid, cut into corporate (and fat cats')
> profits.  It is as certain as 1+1=2 that we will continue to blunder
> on until we run out of fossil fuel.  If we manage to last that long,
> there's some hope.  At that point, starvation and war for the
> remaining resources would reduce the human population to sustainable
> levels (which may be only a few hundred thousand by then) , evolution
> would adapt humans or other life forms to tolerate what remains of the
> ecosystem, and life would go on -- in some form or other.
>
> But YOU -- you're doomed, folks.  Or rather, your grandchildren are
> doomed, as I doubt this will happen sooner than a lifetime from now.
>
> Happy Holidays, everybody,
>
>
> --------------------
> *In a a room at normal "room temperature", place a thermometer and an
> ice cube or two in a cup of water and stir well.  The thermometer WILL
> read 32*F (0*C).  (This is a fact and is not subject to debate.)  Keep
> stirring and watch the ice and the thermometer.  The thermometer will
> continue to read 32*F until the ice is GONE.  (This is also a fact,
> not subject to debate.)
>
> At that point the water temperature will begin to rise (at a rate
> dependent upon many things) until it eventually reaches room
> temperature.  Note that while ice is present in the glass, the
> temperature does not change despite the fact that warming is clearly
> occurring.  This is due to the distinction between heat (which is
> increasing) and temperature (which does not increase until the ice is
> melted).
>
> Now apply this to the Earth.  The average temperature on earth will
> not increase significantly till all the ice is melted.  (Due to
> inhomogeneity of mixing, this statement is not such an absolute as the
> statements  about the ice water, but in general it is true.)
> What this means is that "global warming" refers to an overall increase
> in the BTU content of the Earth, and NOT to an overall increase in its
> temperature.
>
> ----------------------
> **E.g., hem lines are correlated to the stock market.  If that were
> true we would have long ago mandated that hem lines not drop below the
> clavicle -- a result I'd support for all the wrong reasons.
>
> --
> Bruce
> NJ
>