Author Topic: Weather Thread  (Read 470 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8225
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #30 on: February 17, 2019, 03:54:14 pm »
Yes, the fear is it could become a significant factor over time. Today it is around 1% of the global emissions of methane, but that will increase as global temperatures increase. Eventually we reach a tipping point where the warming feeds back into a viscous cycle where we have more methane produced from bacterial decomposition of the tundra producing more warming.

I have driven the ice road between Inuvik and Tuk and was surprised the many years later at all the problems they had putting in the year round version because of the depths to which the tundra thaws these days.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #31 on: February 17, 2019, 05:43:43 pm »
Yes, the fear is it could become a significant factor over time. Today it is around 1% of the global emissions of methane, but that will increase as global temperatures increase. Eventually we reach a tipping point where the warming feeds back into a viscous cycle where we have more methane produced from bacterial decomposition of the tundra producing more warming.
Except none of this is actually known. It a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated with repeatable experiments.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4036
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #32 on: February 17, 2019, 07:56:52 pm »
Except none of this is actually known. It a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated with repeatable experiments.

waldo hypothesizes: you're incorrect - per Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres:

Quote
Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide (CO2). Both gases are produced in thawing permafrost as dead animal and plant remains are decomposed. However, methane is only formed if no oxygen is available. Until now, it was assumed that larger amounts of greenhouse gases are formed when the ground was dry and well aerated—when oxygen was available. Christian Knoblauch and his colleagues have now demonstrated that water-saturated permafrost soils without oxygen can be twice as harmful to the climate as dry soils—which means the role of methane has been greatly underestimated.

Knoblauch has, for the first time, measured and quantified in the laboratory the long-term production of methane in thawing permafrost. The team had to wait for three years before the approximately 40,000 year-old samples from the Siberian Arctic finally produced methane. The team observed the permafrost for a total of seven years, an unprecedented long-term study.

They found that without oxygen, equal amounts of methane and CO2 are produced. But since methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, it is more significant. Because methane production couldn't be measured, it was assumed that in the absence of oxygen only very small amounts of it can be formed. "It takes an extremely long time until stable methane-producing microorganisms develop in thawing permafrost," explains Knoblauch. "That's why it was so difficult to demonstrate methane production until now."

"By combining process-based and molecular-microbiological methods, our study shows for the first time that the methane-forming microorganisms in the thawing permafrost have significant influence on the greenhouse gas budget," adds co-author Susanne Liebner from the Helmholtz Center Potsdam—GFZ German Research Center for Geosciences.



Online Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8225
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2019, 08:45:20 pm »
Except none of this is actually known. It a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated with repeatable experiments.

Maybe just take a trip up north in the summer and you will see it's not an "experiment" it's reality.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #34 on: February 17, 2019, 09:29:40 pm »
waldo hypothesizes: you're incorrect - per Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres:
I was not talking about the basic GHG effect. The claim that the earth is an unstable system subject to 'tipping points' due to GHGs is nothing but a hypothesis.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Online Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8225
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #35 on: February 17, 2019, 09:44:13 pm »
I was not talking about the basic GHG effect. The claim that the earth is an unstable system subject to 'tipping points' due to GHGs is nothing but a hypothesis.

1.4 million sq. km's of arctic ice melt is not a hypothesis.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4036
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2019, 10:34:12 am »
I was not talking about the basic GHG effect. The claim that the earth is an unstable system subject to 'tipping points' due to GHGs is nothing but a hypothesis.

in regards the discussion of 'thawing permafrost' (relative to that fifth of the Northern Hemisphere landmass that is permafrost), my emphasis was on your oft repeated references to, "an inability to repeat experimentally". The study I linked to is, I interpret, the first to laboratory control measure/quantify the long-term production of methane in thawing permafrost... particularly the emphasis on methane production in water-saturated (absent oxygen) permafrost versus dry-soil permafrost... an addition to and reinforcement of the warming feedback due to melting ice uncovering and destabilizing tundra permafrost.

this measurable data will enable more accurate projections about the impacts of thawing permafrost... perhaps leading towards an eventual inclusion of feedbacks from thawing permafrost in IPCC projections; now absent from current models/modeling.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2019, 01:48:29 pm »
Except none of this is actually known. It a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated with repeatable experiments.

Just like playing Russian Roulette with 6 rounds in a revolver is simply a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated with repeatable experiments.
Funny Funny x 2 View List

Online Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8225
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2019, 02:05:52 pm »
in regards the discussion of 'thawing permafrost' (relative to that fifth of the Northern Hemisphere landmass that is permafrost), my emphasis was on your oft repeated references to, "an inability to repeat experimentally". The study I linked to is, I interpret, the first to laboratory control measure/quantify the long-term production of methane in thawing permafrost... particularly the emphasis on methane production in water-saturated (absent oxygen) permafrost versus dry-soil permafrost... an addition to and reinforcement of the warming feedback due to melting ice uncovering and destabilizing tundra permafrost.

this measurable data will enable more accurate projections about the impacts of thawing permafrost... perhaps leading towards an eventual inclusion of feedbacks from thawing permafrost in IPCC projections; now absent from current models/modeling.

I have also encountered the argument from certain climate change deniers that increased ice sheet over certain areas of the antarctic ocean is proof global warming can't be happening. Then you show the data that points out that reduced ocean surface salinity due to increased precipitation caused by warmer air/sea temperatures is ironically the cause of that ice. Meanwhile of course the Thwaites Glacier continues to slip off the land and into the sea. Psst, don't buy land in Miami.   

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #39 on: February 18, 2019, 02:12:42 pm »
Just like playing Russian Roulette with 6 rounds in a revolver is simply a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated with repeatable experiments.
Except it has. People have done it and died. Your analogy fails for another reason because you assume there is a trigger that is actually under our control. There is not. Global CO2 emissions are not going to decline not matter how much be we flagellate ourselves because humans need affordable energy to keep people fed and sheltered. The only actual discussion going on is not about lowering emissions but about how much do we waste pretending to lower emissions without actually killing the economy in the process. This discussion is not helped by the large number of people who are completely ignorant when it comes to economics - "economics deniers" would not be an unreasonable label for these folks.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 02:21:25 pm by TimG »

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2019, 02:23:27 pm »
If only we could have a controlled experiment for the environmental apocalypse.....THEN Tim would be on board.  :D
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Online Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8225
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2019, 02:25:14 pm »
Except it has. People have done it and died. Your analogy fails for another reason because you assume there is a trigger that is actually under our control. There is not. Global CO2 emissions are not going to decline not matter how much be we flagellate ourselves because humans need affordable energy to keep people fed and sheltered. The only actual discussion going on is not about lowering emissions but about how much do we waste pretending to lower emissions without actually killing the economy in the process. This discussion is not helped by the large number of people who are completely ignorant when it comes to economics - "economics deniers" would not be an unreasonable label for these folks.

Well let's see, I am sure you have heard by now that cars, for instance, will run on things opther than gas or diesel. Is it not our choice which kind of car we buy next time we need one?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2019, 02:35:46 pm »
Well let's see, I am sure you have heard by now that cars, for instance, will run on things opther than gas or diesel. Is it not our choice which kind of car we buy next time we need one?
Except the electricity to power these cars has to come from somewhere and that often means coal or gas. Then you have the awkward problem is our grid cannot handle a significant number of EVs and no politician wants to talk about who has to pay for those upgrades because they don't lend themselves to cool slogans or photo shoots.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2019, 02:44:44 pm »
Except the electricity to power these cars has to come from somewhere and that often means coal or gas.

I bet you argue that the problem with wind and solar is that we don't have storage technology, and now you argue that storage technology must rely on fossil fuels. I would say both your glasses are half empty.

Global CO2 emissions are not going to decline not matter how much be we flagellate ourselves because humans need affordable energy to keep people fed and sheltered.

Again, you ignore the many alternatives like reducing our consumption of meat. Lower GHG emissions, lower land usage, significantly lower water usage, etc.  Same applies to shelter. We don't need to live in climate controlled monster mansions and offices with zero insulation.

The only actual discussion going on is not about lowering emissions but about how much do we waste pretending to lower emissions without actually killing the economy in the process.

Again, for the 103954731935717834th time, the economy is an artificial construct and it is what we make it to be. The environment is real, the economy is not.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Weather Thread
« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2019, 02:45:28 pm »
If only we could have a controlled experiment for the environmental apocalypse.....THEN Tim would be on board.
There have been doom mongers saying the apocalypse is coming for 1000s of years. None of them were right. Go back to the 70s an read the "predictions" of doom caused by overpopulation. Given the history of failure the safe bet is that the doom mongers will be wrong again.