This is D's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following D's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
D
Recent Activity
"Posted by: D | July 28, 2013 at 20:12" That comment is a fraud, and is not me. It is someone impersonating me to try to inflame the admin. === "So you're arguing that humans are inevitably going to go extinct, or return to a preindustrial existence, when we run through our stored fossil fuels?" - Ned Ward. No, not at least any time soon humans aren't going extinct. Never said that. I don't think pre-industrial existence is required either. What I do think is both technical and social issues need vast reformation before the problem ever gets solved. You guys are talking about almost totally replacing infrastructure that was developed over a 160 years period from the first rail ways and steam boats. You can't honestly expect that to be replaced on a whim, and probably not even within a generation or two.
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
Sam: You realize of course, that few brains equals fewer discoveries and less surplus economies to fund research projects. So the situation is a catch 22 anyway in light of the CO2 issue and in terms of your perceived need to advance and leave the planet. I think you're over doing it. A 90% extinction is a bit ridiculous imo. A supposedly million year long super-plume wasn't even that bad. I think real world economics will force people to change the way we live when "crunch time" happens, if our technology doesn't catch up to our needs. Example, megalopolises which are located 1400 miles away from their primary food source. This is a source of major fuel consumption for no good reason other than the fact the "traditional city" has been there so long it became a self-reinforcing system. However, if food prices and fuel prices reach ridiculous levels they may well achieve in a few decades as population reaches 8, then 9 billion, then I think these cities, such as Miami and New York and Manhattan will experience major collapses. Consider another thing. We have something like 70% of our economy from "white collar" work, which mostly consists of mid level management (I consider lower management as blue collar in many cases), and of course finance, which the U.S. has most of it's population apparently employed in manipulating other people's finances, including brokerages, banks, lawyers, etc. A large portion of this is in someway misleading, fraudulent, or otherwise parasitic. When a collapse does happen, if it happens, I think these people will go into three basic categories: Educated or otherwise experienced survivalists will become the new "blue collar" class. Much of the existing white collar class which has no farming or survivalist experience will just be screwed, and become the new poverty class. The rich and powerful will in the short term be unaffected, as they will simply manipulate and extort everyone else, at least until these wealthy people die anyway. Even if the dollar fails, so what? They own all the gold, silver, and platinum, and the own all the land. It won't hurt them personally at all. They may even profit by the collapse, because they'll be able to buy up all the businesses and lands they don't already own. Rental properties are far better than gold mines.
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
"2. Stopping human emissions as fast as possible reduces risk of catastrophic damage, but does not eliminate it. On the flip side. There is no way to avoid catastrophic damage without first reducing emissions to near zero. Our actions in this regard are critical." - End Quote. While I actually agree based on calculations, assuming our output is to blame, this step is both technically and morally impossible. It's technically impossible because there is no way to do food preservation and transport in a global carbon neutral market. Assuming everything was run on TRULY carbon neutral energy, you'd need ridiculous amounts of either very large batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells for all the trucks, trains, and ships which presently run on Diesel. I figured the battery space for an Electric Semi truck would kill between 2 and 4 pallet spaces per container trailer...and you would need to swap out the battery or the trailer at the end of every route, even on local dedicated routes, to re-charge it for the next use. Presently local dedicated routes make 3 or 4 round trips per day, but it would take a full day to charge one battery, so you would need 3 to 5 batteries per truck just to do ordinary local food and container transports. Also, capping carbon footprint to zero would require a mandate of no more than 2 children per woman world wide, and a preferred suggestion of no more than 1 child per woman, for 2 or more generations, because present world population growth is happening faster than our ability to economically replace dirty technology with carbon neutral technology. But honestly, a child-per woman cap is immoral, unethical and in the U.S. constitutional and DoE illegal, in terms of personal God-given rights. How would you enforce it anyway? Fine the parents a thousand dollars per year for each child beyond the second? That would be a violation of the child's "Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." While I have personally pointed out that a child cap is literally the most practical solution, it is also the least moral solution I can think of, and in many cases may even be quite hateful. I can envision married couples being required to take DNA tests and I.Q. tests to earn a "License" to have a child. Is that what people want? Because ultimately that's what type of regulations would be put in place...it's a horrifying thought...
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
dorlomin: In that last link you provided, it first of all focused on points at 5k, 8k, and 2k years. Secondly, he blames CO2 concentration fluctuations as large as 5 to 10PPM on pandemics and forest regrowth in abandoned areas...at 2k years ago population levels... ...I'm not seeing it. I mean, if you killed a billion people today it would only make about a 1PPM difference over a 1 year period, and maybe not even that. After all, the Keeling curve is not even growing proportional to population growth. We've added 2 billion people in the past 25 years, but the slope of the net increase in the curve only went up by about 0.5 to 1PPM, considering the present gross output is 6PPM it means a 40% increase in population corelated to only a 15% increase in gross production and a 1/3 to 2/3 increase in net production of CO2....and this is assuming the entire net gain is to be blamed on humans...r.e. the arctic methane torches are not quantified due to lack of study and understanding... So if adding 2 billion people only makes about a half of a PPM per year over a 25 year period, that's about 12PPM total net gain from a 2 billion person population change. Since world population wasn't anywhere near 2 billion at 2000 years ago, and since no pandemic ever changed the population by anywhere near a billion, nevermind 2 billion, I don't see how that theory holds water. Not to mention people back then used a pathetically small amount of energy (blacksmithing, brick making, and cooking and heating in winter,) compared to people today: factories, automobiles, canning an cooking, heating/air, asphault roads, concrete roads, etc. Not only was the population too small to explain such a large fluctuation even at our present average energy consumption, but they just flat out didn't use as much energy per person as we use today. So you really have two variables working against that theory that humans caused 5 to 10PPm fluctuations through agriculture and deforestation and "resets" from pandemics. You could kill a billion people today from Europe, China, India, and the U.S. randomly, and it would take 20 years for a 10PPM difference to happen compared to the present curve's slope...
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
Dorlomin: I used a piece of paper and folding in half to scale that graph. I would revise my estimation of the leveling off to be from 6000 to 4000 years ago. Based on this population graph: http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/themes/keytheme1.htm The population during that period was between 200 million and 500 million. Compared to modern CO2 curve, that is insignificant. That's between 1/14th and 1/35th of the present world population. They would only produce 0.05ppmCO2 per year from breathing, and virtually nothing from industry or agriculture, because simple blacksmithing was the limits of their wood or coal based industry. Compared to today where we have electric foundries working thousands of tons of metal per day. We actually produce 6PPM CO2 per year gross and abour 3.5 to 4 of it gets taken up by the environement, in addition to the naturally produced global CO2. This leaves us with an apparent net surplus of 2 to 2.5PPM per year presently. I don't think 20% of one part per million gross production of CO2 between 6k and 4k years ago would have any effect whatsoever on the environment. Can you offer some other theory as to why the leveling off occurred? The man induced thing is not feasible...remember, North America and South America at that time had their native forests, not touched at all by Europe, so any pathetic CO2 production from Europe or Asia would have been easily taken up by the environment scores of times more easily than today. I'd say it was leveling off for unknown, but "natural" reasons.
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
Dorlomin: You realize the time frame you're talking about where the temperature at the end does not parallel the cycle, that time frame is over 10,000 years. According to the graphic, the temperature hasn't been matching the projected cycle since before recorded history, so why is it suddenly to be blamed on humans since it's been happening for over 10,000 years anyway? It looks like it leveled off about 8000 to 5000 years ago... I don't get how that supports blaming humans for the warming at all...
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
I don't want to hijack this topic, but I will say one more thing about Tunguska, based on the eye witness reports in the wikipedia article. From the eye witness reports, the second paragraph appears to describe at least 5 shockwaves and at least 3 fireballs. This is not consistent with the single air burst theory of the impact. I can explain two shockwaves from one airburst, because one would come directly to the observer from the blast, the other would be deflected from the ground, travelling straight down from the object, and then outwards so that an observer would hear and feel "thunder" and "wind" knocking them off their feet on two separate occasion from one explosion. What I can't explain from one explosion is 3 different fireballs over several hours period and 5 separate shockwaves. Then in the third eye witness report in Wikipedia, it appears that the object's relative velocity to Earth was so slow that it's decent took fully 10 minutes, and gave off a blue flame that was too hot to look at even from dozens of miles away. The insanely long decent time suggests the object was moving nearly parallel to the Earth's orbit and was basically "captured" at the moment it entered the atmosphere at nearly a tangent angle. Consider, the "atmosphere" is scientifically said to be about 10,000km above the surface, but this is incredibly diffuse. The area that actually causes significant friction is only about 400km. If the object was moving 10 to 20km/second relative to the Earth as normal objects do, then it would only be visible for less than a minute. So whatever the object was, this eye witness report claims it was burning bluish-white for ten minutes decent before the explosion and fireball happened. Then he reports a series of 10 explosions, again not one explosion. Being in a different location than the account in paragraph 2, it's possible some of these explosions were masked from the other observers' position. Now for reference, The recent Russian meteor gave off a red flame in the videos I saw of it, so it couldn't be the same material. Though there may have been some reports of other colored flames as well. Yet clearly, in this recent Russian airburst, there was not a ten minute decent time with a beam of light so bright you couldn't look at it from a distance 40 miles away... The theory of how this airburst event happened is not consistent with any of the eye witness accounts, because it produces at most 2 shockwaves and one fireball, while the accounts have at least 3 fireballs and at least 5 shockwaves, not to mention the ten minute impossible-to-look-at beam of light during the decent. It's interesting to me that as many times as I've watched documentaries on this, I have never one heard of that second or third account word for word like that. After reading that I can't take the prevailing theory seriously, because it's just too exotic and too dynamic to make sense in that context.
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
Also, I know strange green lights were reported in England with Tunguska as well. It's also worth nothing that England is WELL up wind from the prevailing jet streams and atmospheric currents from Tunguska, so the anti-greenhouse agents that caused these phenomena must have circled the Earth in the Stratosphere at least one time, and possibly several times, in order to affect England's sunlight and night lights... That's bigger than anything that happened in my lifetime, and it had to be bigger than Pinatubo as well. Pinatubo didn't level everything like Tunguska did...
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
I also forgot to mention Tunguska meteor/comet event, whatever it was. And it's also coincidentally another T name. This too put a lot of anti-greenhouse agent in the atmosphere, as it was reported as far west as England that there was dimming of the sun for weeks afterwards, and strange atmospheric lighting phenomena, probably red skies and saint elmos fire sorts of things. This event would also "naturally" lower the base temperature in the early 1900's due to this cooling event. Even though it was nowhere near as big as Tambora, which was itself the smallest of the four volcanos I mentioned. The point here is that the "modern record" of the late 1800s and early 1900s is actually not a consistent planetary baseline, because the temperature was naturally cooled below baseline by Krakatoa and the meteor. Compared to today, there was virtually no instrumentation on the planet to record these events. a few weather stations or geologists. pah. Today we have 5 spectrums of satellites viewing every point on the planet, with a new frame every minute, to a quarter kilometer resolution in some cases, not to mention a thermometer every few miles in every major population area, and even in the middle of nowhere in some cases, such as buoys all over the planet taking readings every 15 minutes. That stuff did not exist in 1883 nor even 1908 or even 1920. Weather radar didn't exist until WW2, and the most primitive Infrared Satellites were in the late 50's or early 60's if I'm remembering right. So people call that the "modern record" for the past 120 years or so, but really only about 40 or 50 of it is to standards we consider scientific today. Are you going to say that a volcano so powerful that the shockwave reportedly circled the Earth 7 times would not lower the baseline temperature? Or a meteor that flattend hundreds of square miles and darkened th skies for weeks, this right in the beginning of the 120 year period, the critical 20 or 30 first years, that is used as the alleged "natural" baseline temperature...yet it was "naturally" lowered by the catastrophes... It seems completely dishonest to blame all the temperature increase since then on humans.
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
Kevin: I already know that about the micro-organisms, but the scientists are trying to make specific, to-the-degree claims about temperature over time scales of hundreds of thousands oreven millions of years, based solely on carbon isotope ratios in ice cores and and microbes in mud core samples. I mean seriously, the carbon ratios in the ice is even circular logic, because they're using the premise of a theory to try to prove the conclusion of the theory, when real science is supposed to use evidence to prove both the premise and the conclusion. Let's take an example of the saem thing happening in reverse in nature...i.e. global cooling events. Toba Taupo Thera Tambora ...for some reason all the "T" ones are bad. Anyway, these represented either global or hemispheric cooling of several degrees in a matter of a few months to a year or two, and in the case of Toba and Taupo, it reinforced the ice age, by the geologist and climatologists own data, and wiped out most of the humans at that time. Now I only point this out to show that natural climate changes in the opposite direction have happened, and they've even been larger and more abrupt. Wouldn't it be natural for the opposite to happen as the global winter effects are removed... Why does the sea level record over the past several thousand years shows a ridiculously sharp increase about 8,000 years ago...mind blowing large that dwarfs anything happening presently? The humans alive at that time could not possibly cause such an event, and the total sunlight hitting the planet is the same now as then. The Earth didn't expand to have a larger cross-sectional disk size, after all... When somebody can explain that discrepancy in a manner that isn't a circular logic or a post-hoc or non-sequiter, then I'll stop this line of questioning. So far I haven't found anyone on this site or Dr. Masters' Wunderground who can adequately explain these events, i.e. 8000 years ago, in any context that would negate the possibility of it being within natural norms both then and now. Considering that event, I think it's naive to conclude that humans are somehow doing worse climate change than what the Earth did to itself back then...
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
Also, I'm not trying to claim we could somehow capture all of it, but capturing and actually using at least some of it has got to be better than nothing. Consider this, if the arctic opens for shipping, you could install some sort of system on the ships to extract methane from the water as they traverse it, and use some of it as fuel on the trip. Thereby effectively lowering their net carbon footprint, since the methane torch would be there whether or not you extract the methane, you may as well do it.
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
"D - I think the practicality of harvesting the methane from seeps and clathrates is practically nil :)" - end quote. I've seen a demonstration on Discovery or Science channel about how it could be done. All they did was put an inverted tube over the seep and let it condense on the inside of it. By placing an pump mechanism there, I think you could extract quite a bit of it. When the BP oil spill happened, the temporary cap thing they tried didn't work because the clathrates solidified inside of it and caused the low density to make it buoy up. However, that wasn't a very inventive design. If you had an auger in there to break up the clathrates and pump it up the pipe, that problem wouldn't happen. Also, I don't think torches from clathrates are anywhere nearly as pressurized as the well leak was. From what I've seen it appears to be more or less gentle bubbles. It should't be a technical problem. The only real problem is scale. Which is why I suggested concentrating on only the worse locations..
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
Ok, 3 metrics on the amount of ice: Extent, Area, Volume. Currently all 3 of them are well above the record lows from the past several years. The volume curve linked to on this site shows the volume for June was well over a thousand cu km above last year. I don't know what the raw data says, but the curve actually looks more like 2000 cu km above last year. So we're well on pace for a significant rebound year in volume, which will reset the "exponential curve" by quite a bit, I should think.
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
"you asked why, I gave you a few reasons. The fact is that the arctic has never warmed so far so quickly, this is not a normal interglacial cycle." - end quote. Can I ask how you know that? Proxy data cannot be that precise, because it can only tell you general information, subject to deposition of fossil micro-organisms, which is itself subject to any number of things, such as ocean currents and predation before deposition, or catastrophism local or global. You don't honestly believe proxy data can tell the difference between a 10 year change and a 100 year change @ 400,000 years ago eh? Nevermind a million or ten million years ago... Doesn't the Black Sea flood prove there have been bigger changes in just the past 10,000 years alone? Also wasn't it the North Sea and the English channel which were above ground only about 40,000 years ago? Why doesn't anyone talk about that because those changes are tens of feet over a relatively short time, compared to 400,000 or millions of years....and the biggest part of the change was recent enough that the foundations of human structures have been found under the water in some locations. I think people fail to view the greater scheme of things that this stuff and worse things have happened throughout the history of this planet. I'ts like when a major hurricane hits and all the locals wrongfully cry "this has never happened before," and you go check the newspaper archives and turns out something twice as bad happened a hundred years ago in the same location... Grow up people.
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
Ok, I know Neven and some of you will complain on this comment, but I think it has at least some merit. If the Arctic time bomb thing is happening anyway, and there's no real evidence that it has not been going on for many decades or centuries anyway, since there weren't any instruments previously, then why not just harvest the methane from the biggest problem spots at the lowest arctic latitudes, and go ahead and use it for fuel? The 7 years it spends in the atmosphere as methane at supposedly 30 times more potent GHG than CO2, would equate to 210 years worth of the same amount of carbon as CO2. Not counting the fact that it breaks down into CO2 anyway. If its going to escape anyway, and it's going to turn into CO2 eventually anyway, then you may as well skip the Methane step, use the Methane as a fuel to at least get some value out of it, and then just forget about it. Burning the Methane would ultimately be "Greener" than not burning it, because at least you skip the 7 years at 30 times part, and at least you get useful work out of it. Not burning the Methane is a waste either way.
Toggle Commented Jul 28, 2013 on Arctic time bombs at Arctic Sea Ice
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Ms Grette call a figure of around 300+ppm and not 400ppm? ==== Yes, she did. It was even written on one of the slides. We passed 300PPM about 50 or 60 years ago, so nobody go blaming AGW on people half that age. The sensible conclusion is that there is an error either in the data or in the presentation.
Toggle Commented May 16, 2013 on When the Arctic was 8 °C warmer at Arctic Sea Ice
Big spaces with groups of years having little change just shows that a big "down year" is what determines much of the change. After 2007, there was a rebound 2008, and then a resuming of a down trend in 2009, confirming 2007, and then in 2010 another big down year. So just consider random fluctuations along the trend, but the trend is still down very much. One could view "up years" as compensation for the previous years' above average melt, yet a down trend continues.
Toggle Commented Apr 6, 2013 on PIOMAS April 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
The story claims it's about albedo. I presume the longer explanation is that it takes more snow to cover up trees and shrubs than to cover up shrubs and mosses? === Melting day anomaly is what will allow the greening. This means there are fewer days with ice or snow packs. This is what really does the damage. Green is better than dark soil, but worse than snow. It is also possible that the wind could blow light snow accumulation out of the tree boughs, which would expose more green than mosses or shrubs, but I don't think that's the biggest problem. I think the main problem is just the snow line retreating more and more.
[quote]I would have thought the more trees sucking in CO2 the better. Why is this?[/quote] Short answers: 1, Albedo feedback is responsible for somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 of the total forcing. 2, Carbon absorbed by some relatively small amount of greening isn't going to stop the positive slope in the keeling curve, particularly since plants produce waste every winter anyway when grasses die and trees lose their leaves and such, which offsets much of the absorption benefits.
Why does the rebound peak from Montsurrat show up on almost all data sets, while the rebound peak from Pinatubo only shows up on some data sets, even though Pinatubo was supposedly 10 times bigger of an eruption?
Toggle Commented Jan 6, 2013 on Looking for winter weirdness 5 at Arctic Sea Ice
A-Team: The sway is more like 5 degrees, since the rigging is already shaped like a pyramid, and you're looking at it from an oblique angle. Neven: First paragraph implies this has anything to do with sea ice, which it doesn't. The accident is nowhere near the sea ice.
Toggle Commented Jan 2, 2013 on Shell drill spill? at Arctic Sea Ice
First paragraph is misleading. Also, some people on here might need to be a little less hypocritical. It's almost as if you're hoping for a spill just so you can have an excuse to bash the oil company some more. Shameful behavior, IMO. The Coast Guard said no spill, so just leave it at that.
Toggle Commented Jan 2, 2013 on Shell drill spill? at Arctic Sea Ice
Artful Dodger: Not understanding the scale of the sea level rise problem. 1, There's not enough volume in those lake basins. 2, The dead sea at least is surrounded by significant develop and industrial projects. 3, Filling a dry lake bed with water will lower it's albedo probably by about 0.2, increasing the amount of heat Earth absorbs, which will actually drive UP the temperature in the surrounding region. 4, drilling the tunnels and making the pipes (so that salt water doesn't contaminate drinking water or fresh water environments, would be incredibly cost-prohibitive. 5, The excess weight of water on the continent will cause the continent to sink some, increasing relative sea levels on the ocean-side anyway, actually flooding as much or more land in total anyway.
Wondering if we might see this sort of "fall cold snaps" followed by "no winter," like last year?
Toggle Commented Oct 31, 2012 on Looking for winter weirdness 2 at Arctic Sea Ice
"Think of it this way: a cup of steaming coffee with a lid on and a lid off. Which is losing more heat? The ice is the lid." - Keven O'Neill. True, but it's obviously not enough to balance out the positive feedbacks from melting day anomalies destroying continental snow packs and glaciers, nor the baseline forcing from the CO2. === For those people pointing at increases of SIA in the Antarctic, just remember. 1, The global SIA is declining significantly. 2, Just because local sea ice area increases does not mean sea ice volume has increased. 3, There is much more ice melting world wide besides just sea ice: Continental ice in Greenland, Himalayas, Patagonia, etc, not to mention inland lakes melting weeks and months ahead of long term averages during late winter and spring. Patagonia is in the southern hemisphere, proving a southern hemisphere continental warming trend exists.