[TheForge] The Siberian Hole. (Was: Slack tank.) ..POL OT
Peter Fels & Phoebe Palmer
artgawk at thegrid.net
Fri Aug 8 18:52:40 EDT 2014
Geoff;
Because we span the political spectrum and are stubborn,
hard headed, opinionated blacksmiths..
We pretty much agreed to sidestep this sort of conflict,
and stick to BS discussions.
Though i confess my mind is boiling with arguments just now.
Besides, we are surely all wrong...grin .
On Aug 8, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Geoff Nelson wrote:
Don't want to start a war so all I'm going to say is I still don't believe.
Have a great day.
Geoff
On 8/08/2014 12:37 PM, Bruce . wrote:
> 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
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> TheForge mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>
> TheForge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.shutterfly.com
> Login: blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
> Password: anvil
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
--
Kind regards
Geoff
______________________________________________________________
TheForge mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
TheForge mail list group photo site is
http://www.shutterfly.com
Login: blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
Password: anvil
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
More information about the TheForge
mailing list