EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:25 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:16 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Dingo wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
I don't like linking to blogs, but Skeptical Science has a really good article on why net positive feedback does not imply runaway warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/positiv ... vanced.htm


Again, a completely different discussion because the release of significant amounts of methane is not considered a "feedback" in those discussions. The CO2 temp increase, causing more H2O vapor, which causes another increase in temperature and causes slightly more CO2 and H2O vapor is the positive feedback. The release of methane in the Arctic, which is the more probable scenario, is another trigger and not a feedback on CO2.

I'm no expert on the distinction between a "trigger" and a "feedback" but for the purposes of this discussion it appears to be a distinction without a difference. If the CO2 and water vapor tandem create a warming effect that releases methane then it becomes part of the feedback system clearly and as such produces a feedback of CO2 and water vapor with the cycle diminishing steadily to equilibrium as Snowy has laid out.


Except for the fact this "feedback" is not CO2, and as such is not included in the cycle Snowy references to show there will not be an infinite increase in temperature, which is the "Venus Effect" definition of runaway. It by itself creates a much higher equillibrium point than would occur in Snowy's figures, which is why I referenced it as a trigger. The release of one stage of the methane stored creates another feedback loop on top of the loop Snowy showed for CO2. This loop would be the increasing methane concentration loop, which should cause a higher temperature spike in the decade scale and over time a higher CO2 concentration than the "normal" feed back loop would produce.

So using this definition of a "feedback" anything caused by the increased temperature is a feedback, but that means the data listed in relation to the CO2 feedback loop is incomplete and inaccurate for any discussion of feedback effect.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:52 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
Infinite runaway is not the 'Venus Effect', and really impossible. With Earth being farther away from the Sun, the oven would be half as hot, or so. The only CO2 'tipping point' is when it gets hot enough to be released from solution and rock to a half mile deep.
The sequence of HGHGs to warming enough for open ocean warming to be self sustaining, leading to tundra methane and other GHG releases, with more warming from that leading to deep ocean methane self release. Self release is just when outside feedbacks are no longer necessary for the process to continue, that is when the positive feedback loops are formed.
The last being CO2 in the top paragraph sentence.
I hope that open ocean warming does not trigger the methane self release monster, and that there is still time to reverse course (eventually) with massive HGHG reduction within a short time. From what I remember, the probability of that working is 50/50. :- :-k

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 8:17 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 260
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Dingo wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Again, a completely different discussion because the release of significant amounts of methane is not considered a "feedback" in those discussions. The CO2 temp increase, causing more H2O vapor, which causes another increase in temperature and causes slightly more CO2 and H2O vapor is the positive feedback. The release of methane in the Arctic, which is the more probable scenario, is another trigger and not a feedback on CO2.

I'm no expert on the distinction between a "trigger" and a "feedback" but for the purposes of this discussion it appears to be a distinction without a difference. If the CO2 and water vapor tandem create a warming effect that releases methane then it becomes part of the feedback system clearly and as such produces a feedback of CO2 and water vapor with the cycle diminishing steadily to equilibrium as Snowy has laid out.


Except for the fact this "feedback" is not CO2, and as such is not included in the cycle Snowy references to show there will not be an infinite increase in temperature, which is the "Venus Effect" definition of runaway. It by itself creates a much higher equillibrium point than would occur in Snowy's figures, which is why I referenced it as a trigger. The release of one stage of the methane stored creates another feedback loop on top of the loop Snowy showed for CO2. This loop would be the increasing methane concentration loop, which should cause a higher temperature spike in the decade scale and over time a higher CO2 concentration than the "normal" feed back loop would produce.

So using this definition of a "feedback" anything caused by the increased temperature is a feedback, but that means the data listed in relation to the CO2 feedback loop is incomplete and inaccurate for any discussion of feedback effect.

The principle stands. Everything in the loop, ghgs, melting ice etc, is subject to the same diminishing dynamic of lessening feedback. That does not include anything influencing warming - for instance the repositioning of the sun in its orbit due to axial tilt generating the Milankovitch Cycles caused by varying insolation is a oneway operation and since it is one way, the sun part is not itself subject to any feedback loop although it generates a feedback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:31 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Dingo wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Again, a completely different discussion because the release of significant amounts of methane is not considered a "feedback" in those discussions. The CO2 temp increase, causing more H2O vapor, which causes another increase in temperature and causes slightly more CO2 and H2O vapor is the positive feedback. The release of methane in the Arctic, which is the more probable scenario, is another trigger and not a feedback on CO2.

I'm no expert on the distinction between a "trigger" and a "feedback" but for the purposes of this discussion it appears to be a distinction without a difference. If the CO2 and water vapor tandem create a warming effect that releases methane then it becomes part of the feedback system clearly and as such produces a feedback of CO2 and water vapor with the cycle diminishing steadily to equilibrium as Snowy has laid out.


Except for the fact this "feedback" is not CO2, and as such is not included in the cycle Snowy references to show there will not be an infinite increase in temperature, which is the "Venus Effect" definition of runaway. It by itself creates a much higher equillibrium point than would occur in Snowy's figures, which is why I referenced it as a trigger. The release of one stage of the methane stored creates another feedback loop on top of the loop Snowy showed for CO2. This loop would be the increasing methane concentration loop, which should cause a higher temperature spike in the decade scale and over time a higher CO2 concentration than the "normal" feed back loop would produce.

So using this definition of a "feedback" anything caused by the increased temperature is a feedback, but that means the data listed in relation to the CO2 feedback loop is incomplete and inaccurate for any discussion of feedback effect.


Dingo wrote:
The principle stands. Everything in the loop, ghgs, melting ice etc, is subject to the same diminishing dynamic of lessening feedback. That does not include anything influencing warming - for instance the repositioning of the sun in its orbit due to axial tilt generating the Milankovitch Cycles caused by varying insolation is a oneway operation and since it is one way, the sun part is not itself subject to any feedback loop although it generates a feedback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


Yes, there are limits, which is why Venus is not hotter than it is now. The specific points indicated in the CO2 feedback do not apply to the methane release limits as the methane release would be in addition to, and thus "on top" of the level of those feedbacks.

There is a maximum for everything, but it does not affect the definition used in the reference to "runaway warming" by those who used the term. Just like the term "Global warming" does not mean that every point on the planet has to be warmer, yet there are those you have made that claim because of a "common" definition. It is all semantics at this point.

Will a large release of methane or nitrous cause an increase in temperature? Yes, it will do so in proportion to the amount of the release and it should do so rapidly. This is not to be taken as a heater, but that the temperarue will be warmer than it would have been without the release and that increase will be rapid.

Can we do anything about said release? No, it is out ouf our controlonce it starts.

Will said release cause another tipping point for another release to be passed? Possibly, that depends on the initial release and at what temperture level it occurs.

If there is a second tipping point passed and a second large release of methane/nitrous will it cause an increase in themperature? Yes, it will do so in proportion to the size of the release with the same conditions and caveates as the first.

Can we do anything about the second release? No, like the first it would be out of our control, but out of our control from the start of the first release.

Are there other potential tipping points that could follow? Yes, there are.

Has there been similar rapid increases in temperature attributed to carbon release in the past? Yes, they appear as larger spikes on the graph.

Was the effect on the species living at the time positive or negative? Clearly negative for the vast majority of the fauna and some of the flora.

Does that indicate a higher probability of a similar outcome with future mass releases of carbon? Yes, it does.

What amount of carbon has to be released to have such an impact and will the releases being discussed be sufficient to reach that level? That is the $64,000 question. To answer this we just need to quote Dirty Harry .... "How lucky do you feel?" because the gamble is similar just on a larger scale.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:13 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 260
I don't know of any rule that says feedback can only refer to water vapor and CO2. If methane and melting ice want to join the party then that's all right too. The point is without an outside force like man the feedbacks steadily diminish to equilibrium. No runaway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:58 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Dingo wrote:
I don't know of any rule that says feedback can only refer to water vapor and CO2.


There is none, but those were the only feedbacks being shown in support of the lack of rapid warming. Adding methane on top of that significantly increases the base temperature and the size of the initial feedback as well.

Quote:
If methane and melting ice want to join the party then that's all right too. The point is without an outside force like man the feedbacks steadily diminish to equilibrium.


Using your definition there would not be any runaway even with human input, because the feedbacks also steadily diminish to equilibrium in that scenario. Just at a higher level than they would have before.

Quote:
No runaway.


Not using your definition of "runaway", no. Using the definition of those making the statement, yes there will be with a signifcant release of sequestered methane.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:47 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 260
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Dingo wrote:
If methane and melting ice want to join the party then that's all right too. The point is without an outside force like man the feedbacks steadily diminish to equilibrium.


Using your definition there would not be any runaway even with human input, because the feedbacks also steadily diminish to equilibrium in that scenario.

No runaway but not diminished feedback, not until humans stop putting out ghgs and leveling forests and destroying ocean plankton. Perhaps you were referring to the extinction limit, which would certainly allow for diminished feedback. ](*,)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:38 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Dingo wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Dingo wrote:
If methane and melting ice want to join the party then that's all right too. The point is without an outside force like man the feedbacks steadily diminish to equilibrium.


Using your definition there would not be any runaway even with human input, because the feedbacks also steadily diminish to equilibrium in that scenario.

No runaway but not diminished feedback, not until humans stop putting out ghgs and leveling forests and destroying ocean plankton. Perhaps you were referring to the extinction limit, which would certainly allow for diminished feedback. ](*,)


No, there is a finite amount of carbon which can be released by humanity and that would not cause a runaway as you have defined it. This is especially true if humans become extinct in the process.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:01 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
Wayne S; "No and huge amounts of water vapor which also has a net warming, there is a finite amount of carbon which can be released by humanity and that would not cause a runaway as you have defined it. This is especially true if humans become extinct in the process."

That is not true. The amount of HGHGs is already beyond the open ocean warming tipping point. In fact, since 2007, we have been in runaway with that. The amount of sequestered carbon is between 100 and 1000 times the amount humans have burned to start the processes. Burning the last 50% quickens the turnover.
It is not linear so 100 times the atmospheric carbon is more than 100 times the .7*C plus the increase in the form of 'momentum'. That much is enough to release all the carbon sequestered. The atmosphere is hot enough to boil away the oceans and heat the earth to depths of geologic heating. 200*C or more. No more life on Earth, ever again.
So if even an immediate human population crash will not change it, what could?. What is needed is plenty of atmospheric aerosols for long enough to cool the atmosphere and oceans.
In the past, super volcanoes have caused bottlenecks with ~5*C cooling for a decade or two as aerosols fall out.
Even if humans had a population crash and emissions went way down immediately, it does not stop the warming waters from causing more atmospheric and hard earth temperature rise at depth, leading to unstoppable tundra methane and other GHGs releasing deeper and deeper then joined by the ocean at increasing depths.
So a super volcanic eruption could save life if it is before the warming is greater than its cooling effect. If Yellowstone blows in 2K years, it will be far too late, but if induced or by natural reasons it goes off before circa 2050, it saves life. Soon enough, and it could save humanity as a species. \:D/ :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:02 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Wayne S; "No and huge amounts of water vapor which also has a net warming, there is a finite amount of carbon which can be released by humanity and that would not cause a runaway as you have defined it. This is especially true if humans become extinct in the process."

That is not true. The amount of HGHGs is already beyond the open ocean warming tipping point. In fact, since 2007, we have been in runaway with that. The amount of sequestered carbon is between 100 and 1000 times the amount humans have burned to start the processes. Burning the last 50% quickens the turnover.
It is not linear so 100 times the atmospheric carbon is more than 100 times the .7*C plus the increase in the form of 'momentum'. That much is enough to release all the carbon sequestered. The atmosphere is hot enough to boil away the oceans and heat the earth to depths of geologic heating. 200*C or more. No more life on Earth, ever again.
So if even an immediate human population crash will not change it, what could?. What is needed is plenty of atmospheric aerosols for long enough to cool the atmosphere and oceans.
In the past, super volcanoes have caused bottlenecks with ~5*C cooling for a decade or two as aerosols fall out.
Even if humans had a population crash and emissions went way down immediately, it does not stop the warming waters from causing more atmospheric and hard earth temperature rise at depth, leading to unstoppable tundra methane and other GHGs releasing deeper and deeper then joined by the ocean at increasing depths.
So a super volcanic eruption could save life if it is before the warming is greater than its cooling effect. If Yellowstone blows in 2K years, it will be far too late, but if induced or by natural reasons it goes off before circa 2050, it saves life. Soon enough, and it could save humanity as a species. \:D/ :mrgreen:


Except for the way Dingo has defined "runaway" means there will be none as defined.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:04 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
Runaway is anything that is near impossible to stop, but in this case it is the definition of 'runaway global warming'. So, according to one of your first posts, Wayne, the open ocean warming passed its tipping point in 2007, and open ocean warming accelerated tundra warming past its self release point and on to the oceans rapidly heating doing the same at depth deeper and deeper until all methane is in gaseous form or broken down to CO2 and H2O.
So excessive humans led to excessive HGHGs, which led to open ocean warming with the melting ice cap, which leads to tundra then oceans positive feedback loops. Dominoes? How about, Cascading Ecological Failure with destruction of all or most of the biosphere, and for a length of time from 50 million years to 5 billion when the Earth melts in the Red Giant phase of our star.
I hate to think it is already too late, and all my years of doing the right thing were for nothing. Same with millions of other real green people.
However, it sure looks that way.
"That 2C limit was established decades ago by an economist. In that time, more research has shown that the safe limit is closer to 1C. And, many scientists, including Dr. Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall Ctr, finds that the carbon budget has already been used up to have a good chance of remaining below 2C. These are the dirty little secrets organizations like the IPCC don't advertise. We need to end greenhouse gas emissions now, or face a very grim future.""
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12 ... l-warming/
Fact or Fiction?: Geoengineering Can Solve Global Warming

Neither blocking sunlight nor capturing carbon can stop climate change
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-warming/

Climate depression is for real. Just ask a scientist
http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate ... gn=climate

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:29 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
Meeting two degree climate target means 80 per cent of world's coal is unburnable, study says

Posted on 6 February 2015 by Guest Author

This is a re-post from Roz Pidcock at Carbon Brief

"More than 80 per cent of the world's known coal reserves need to stay in the ground to avoid dangerous climate change, according to new research. Thirty per cent of known oil and 50 per cent of gas reserves are unburnable and drilling in the Arctic is out of the question if we're to stay below two degrees, the new research notes.

That vast amounts of fossil fuels must go unused if we're to keep warming in check isn't a new idea. What's novel about today's paper is that it pinpoints how much fuel is unburnable in specific regions of the world, from Canadian tar sands to the oil-rich Middle East.

Unburnable carbon

In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculatedhow much carbon we can emit and still keep a decent chance of limiting warming to two degrees above pre-industrial levels. This is known as a carbon budget. Two degrees is theinternationally-accepted point beyond which climate change risks become unacceptably high.

As of 2010, we could release a maximum of about 1000 billion more tonnes of carbon dioxide and still have a 50:50 chance of staying below two degrees, according to the IPCC."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/meeting ... nable.html

From the previous post we know that even that is NOT enough to stop CAGW to GTE. I would say people will just not do it. Too much sacrifice from their selfishness, and too little care about the children of the future. I think not more than 1.8*C, rounded up to 2 is not going to happen and the 2 was a mistake in science. In the past a 1.5*C gain did not start a runaway, but a 5*C Arctic warming DID, both with PETM and the Permian ELE.
We just don't see it as a species, so are doomed to extinction and taking probably every species with us. The extremophobes near volcanic vents would only make it if it is 'just' a high percentage and not complete methane 'turnover'.
Both the Permian and PETM were partial turnovers, and PETM was not a true ELE(30% and not the 50% for the definition), but took 30 million years to completely heal. The heating is going up 10 times faster than PETM and is accelerating toward 40 times faster and more.
It is hard to admit that we are in a runaway right now and it will progress to assisting our population crash then eventually killing all the survivors.

I do believe that drilling mile deep holes every 4 or 5 miles around the Yellowstone magma chamber, 1/4 mile away, and at least 120 total MGT devices are simultaneously detonated is feasible to stop the process of CAGW to GTE. It would probably be a long enough winter of ten years and a ten degree F reduction in temps until the sun shines again through the settled aerosols. The population bottleneck would ensure most and our own species survival, and of course cut down the HGHGs to near zero. There is a time limit for this to work, too.
For links and more info look at the thread "the Fourth Tipping Point".

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:37 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
"The Mechanism
What is the mechanism behind accelerated warming of the Arctic Ocean, huge abrupt methane eruptions from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean and skyrocketing temperatures?

Natalia Shakhova et al. in 2010 estimated the accumulated potential for the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) region alone (image on the right) as follows:
- organic carbon in permafrost of about 500 Gt
- about 1000 Gt in hydrate deposits
- about 700 Gt in free gas beneath the gas hydrate stability zone.

In early 2014, Sam Carana estimated annual methane emissions from hydrates and permafrost at 100 Tg (i.e. 0.1 Gt). This methane will contribute to further warming of the air over the Arctic and the North Atlantic, causing further further extreme weather events, such as heatwaves and storms along the path of the Gulf Stream from the North Atlantic into the Arctic Ocean, in turn triggering further releases from hydrates at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean and escalating into runaway global warming. "
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/02 ... anism.html
Yamal Peninsula
"The Yamal Peninsula stretches some seven hundred kilometres into the Arctic Ocean from the Russian mainland below the Arctic Circle. Known to it's indigenous inhabitants as 'the end of the world', this area of the Russian federation is arousing international attention.
The nomadic Nenets tribes of this peninsula have retained their traditional culture and simple way of life for over a thousand years. Surviving Stalinist Russia and the interests of the gas drilling company Gazprom they now face a new threat, climate Change and their landscape is dramatically changing. In recent years, this rich, rugged and inaccessible peninsula in Northern Siberia has been the focus of media headlines. The world's largest energy company Gazprom, is trying to fully exploit Russia's largest gas field containing an estimated half of the world’s reserves. Gazprom has embarked on an extensive venture to cash in on these gas reserves, the venture becoming Russia’s largest energy project in history. At the same time the landscape in Yamal is changing as the Arctic permafrost thaws due to warmer Arctic temperatures. Scientists are concerned that millions of tonnes of Ch4 (methane) locked in the thawing permafrost could be a ticking time bomb, a tipping point for the world's climate system."
http://www.futureworldproject.org/story/yamal
and related;
Methane Lake
"As permafrost thaws deep into the Arctic ground, history is unlocked from the ice. Even preserved young baby mammoths have been found here by Yar-Sale guide Karill Seretetto . Considered a bad omen by the Nenets marking the finder of such mamont remains to an early death, seems less superstitious once in this thawing landscape. The tundra ground that gets its stability from the permafrost has started to collapse , emptying lakes of water and creating dramatic gulleys. Most worryingly triggering the decomposition of organic residues releasing greenhouse gases such as methane into the atmosphere."
http://www.futureworldproject.org/story/methanelake

"Well, another fine mess you've got us into." (Laurel and Hardy) :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:47 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
Dingo; "The principle stands. Everything in the loop, ghgs, melting ice etc, is subject to the same diminishing dynamic of lessening feedback. That does not include anything influencing warming - for instance the repositioning of the sun in its orbit due to axial tilt generating the Malenkovich Cycles"
What you mistakenly are referring to is a negative feedback loop. The negative feedback returns to the way it was, while a positive feedback just gets bigger at an accelerating rate. So, in a way, it is a very negative thing here.
You mistake axis tilt as generating the Malenkovich Cycles. The actual cycle is from orbital variation between a rounder and a more elliptical orbit, not tilt, and it is a 100K yr. cycle. The axis tilt wobble is from 11 to 22.5* of tilt over a time span of 23K years.
For the ice age epoch to change from interglacial, the 100K M cycle has to coincide with max tip to get the albedo change needed to keep summer snows from melting, especially in the northern hemisphere.
We are presently at 22* tip and near elliptical as the orbit gets. So CAGW has completely overwhelmed the astronomical cycles.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Runaway warming
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:51 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2600
Location: Central Colorado
So, humanity has overcome the Orbital Tilt and Wobble, and the Malenkovich Earth Orbital ellipticity.
This should be here, too, I suppose;
"Methane clathrate, also known commonly as methane hydrate, is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure. Potentially large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of the Earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
The huge Siberian methane blowholes of 2014 were Methane Clathrate Guns in its smaller effect. I used to make silver fulminate in my youth, and methane clathrate is VERY similar. Without ignition it is 100 times the heat trapping of CO2 for the first 20 years. Its stability is only with lower temperature and depth. It explosively releases with seaquakes, or as little as a 2*F temperature rise. The Siberian deposits are legendary, and 50GTs of it are ready to release, it very rapidly expands to 169 times its volume. That is just the beginning.......
Like nitroglycerin without fire. Arctic surface temperature goes +5*C or more and it starts below the surface. It is now +6*C over in the Arctic. The 50GTs of it are equivalent to 5000GTs of CO2, compared to the HGHG annual of ~33GT. Then the tundra total with all the ocean deposits is another 1000GTs, or 100K GTs of CO2, and the H2O vapor, and nitrous gases, among others. That puts the surface temperature beyond the boiling point of water. As a worst case scenario, but even an 80% turnover would would eliminate all but thermal vent life. :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :-({|= :cry: 8-[ :-k :- :mrgreen:
http://guymcpherson.com/2015/03/for-tho ... of-humans/
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/02 ... -2031.html
http://planetextinction.com/planet_exti ... hrates.htm
http://planetextinction.com/documents/M ... rvival.pdf
http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/2015/ ... -2015.html
from the Clathrate Gun to Our Heads post.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sushilydv and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group