Neutron flux ablation... AKA: they can't stop jerking off on the keyboard.
"The Science is settled", and other fairy tales
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
Totoe
Well-Known Member
Since Humans are responsible for about 3% of the co2 that gets released, couldn't that explain a partial increase in temperature? The earth's ecosystem is a fragile balance even something such as a 3% increase in co2 could explain a 1% rise in temperature. Where I live we experience a 100 degree range of temperatures, so if it were to rise constantly year after year, one could conclude that greenhouse emissions may not be the sole cause, but they could certainly be a contributing factor.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/90EO10192/abstract
"Earlier atmospheric balancing calculations imply present-day (pre-industrial) CO[SUB]2[/SUB] degassing rates of 67×10[SUP]12[/SUP] mol yr[SUP]−1[/SUP] [Holland, 1978; Berner et al., 1983]; recent calculations suggest degassing rates may be as high as 11×10[SUP]12[/SUP] mol yr[SUP]−1[/SUP] [Berner, 1990]."
11×10[SUP]12[/SUP] mol yr[SUP]−1[/SUP] woks out to 484 gigatonnes per year since 1 mole of Co2 weighs 44 grams.
unless my math is off.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
There are aneutronic fusion reactions, with one of the most promising being deuterium with helium-3. There's speculation that we can mine the lunar surface for trapped helium-3.
The deuterium-tritium reaction has the advantage of having a very low sustain temperature/pressure. But it's neutron-dirty, and irradiation and neutron activation of the reactor vessel makes DT fusion about as unattractive (and technically more difficult) as (than) fission.
Hydrogen has some basic issues as a road fuel. Aside from safety (your choice. Deeply cryogenic liquid or gas under fantastic pressures, and an impressive explosive-mixture range with air.) either form has energy density issues. The "gas" tank needs to be huge. Natural gas is better but not by much. It would need to be liquid to have decent energy density, and that won't keep in the garage. Inherently liquid fuel has much to recommend it. The real testbed for a road fuel will be the 18-wheeler.
And how on Earth might CAFE be pushed to 56mpg? The Prius (the current efficiency leader) won't touch that, and it is not a car for anyone who likes to drive. cn
Totoe
Well-Known Member
You left out how many Joules are needed for the flux capacitor.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I've seen some truly impressive *ordinary* capacitor banks used to power fusion experiments. cn
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
"3% of co2 that gets released" - got a link?
but yes, contrary to what the global warming cassandras are saying, i am not claiming that the temperature has not changed, nor am i saying that it is impossible that humans may be influencing the change, but thats what they want to hear, since these kinds of claims are super easy to deride.
the facts are pretty solid, it's been getting warmer, VERY SLOWLY for some time (since the middle ages in fact, and on a longer timeline, since the turn of the last major glaciation...) this may be entirely natural and unavoidable (and possibly even GOOD for us) or it may be mostly natural, or it may even be MOSTLY a result of human co2 emissions (the possibility i find least likely, but the proposition the global warming crowd pushes hardest)
since co2 global co2 levels, o2 levels and temperature have all been VERY different than they are now, and in the case of co2 there have been periods with less than half the current levels, and periods with more than double (same with oxygen...) and the global mean temperature has been way hotter, and way colder (even within recorded history...) the smart money rests on natural phenomena in the main, with human influence being a matter for research to determine.
hell you cant even get a reliable estimate for how much Co2 gets produced by the earth from geological sources, since estimates vary widely, so widely they go from ~200 million tonnes to ~400 Billion tonnes and thats a pretty big spread. one research paper lists yellowstone caldera as pumping out 26.4 million tonnes of co2 every year all by itself, and describes it as "consistent" with other large volcanic systems including mt aetna, hawaii, the mexico mud volcanoes, and the various hotspots on the "ring of fire"
and we dont even know how many fumaroles are pumping out co2 at the bottom of the ocean.
nobody can even provide accurate estimates of how much co2 is "sequestered" by coral growth, photosynthesis, clams making shells, and other co2 removing biological mechanisms. co2 recoirds show increases of 1-2% over the last 50 years, but thats within the margin of error for ice cores tree rings and sediment data that extends farther back. we just dont know how much or how often co2 levels fluctuate naturally nor is there a consensus on how much co2 is removed from the atmosphere by human caaused agriculture since contrary to popular belief, swamps and jungles are in fact net co2 producers, and not "the lungs of the earth" as the gaia believers would have us believe.
a cornfeild (or any domestic crop, even GMO's!!!) converts more co2 than the same area of jungle foliage does, and it does it without a bed of rotting vegetation underneath producing co2 and methane by the bucketload. nobody can say if the man-made change in the earth's foliage levels (more than before, go humans! lulz) is producing more o2, or binding up more co2 than the "natural" foliage would since theres no measurement of the natural foliage's stats, and nobody is even sure how much ag runoff is increasing oceanic kelp and algae growth.
fuck in a few years you may hear dire warnings of coming famines if co2 levels start dropping which would slow plant growth.
you stoners remember that as much as 2x "normal" co2 levels increases plant growth and improves the rate and efficiency of photosynthesis right? thats why potheads pump co2 into their dope. 2x the current co2 levels wont leave us gasping for air since co2 is currently in the .03% range while o2 is rocking around 20%. more co2 would make plants grow faster, slightly warmer temps would do the same (1-2 degrees every 100 years? thats some pretty glacial change since the mean temp in the jurassic period was like 12 degrees higher than it is now. shit we're still 300-400 years away from the medieval warm period's estimated temps at this rate, and the world survived that last time.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I'd still like a link to the high estimates for geologically-produced CO2. cn
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Regarding your math, I think you slipped a coupla teeth. One teramole of CO2 is 44 teragrams is 44 megatons. So the high estimate of 1.1x10E13 moles is a much more conventional (not quite) half gigaton. cn
Totoe
Well-Known Member
I used your 25 gigatonnes compared to 750 gigatoonnes natural. your figures not mine. you know, the shit you posted on page two that i referenced in my first post.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
thats 11(eleven)x10 to the 12th, , not 1.1(one point one)x10 to the 12th.
so im off by how many zeroes?
and thats not the highest estimate i seen rolling around.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
that was the ipcc's shit, which some think is the absolute definitive number, even though their math doesnt add up, and they won't show their work.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That's why I chose an exponent of thirteen. 11x10E12 = 1.1x10E13
Three zeros. 484 megatons is the stated mess of moles. It's easy to slip teeth in order-of-magnitude calculations.
Not the highest? OK; what is and by how much? cn
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
goddamn. thats what you call "research" re- Searching, for some shit i read 5 years ago who's author i dont recall, which extrapolated the expected global geological output of co2 to be a gigantic number based on known levels from surface volcanoes and whatnot, historical data and an estimated number of un-identified abyssal fumaroles.
this sauce gives an estimate of ~5 x10 to the eleventh for yellowstone caldera alone.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GC000473/abstract
and estimates that global levels are ~6-7 x10 to the twelfth which would knock yellowstone up as something like 15-20% of the global geological output all by itself, and this doesnt even touch on the abyssal fumaroles which are thus far uncounted, and pump out massive levels of various gasses which are as yet also uncounted.
and then theres the benthic cold seeps, which 15 years ago were completely unknown, and still havent been fully examined.
if i could remember where i read the hundreds of gigatonnes number i would certainly provide the data but i dont remember.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The nice thing about the abyssal fumaroles etc. is twofold: 1) basalt isn't very gassy; it's the felsic (rhyolitic) eruptions that burp a lot, and 2) gases being released into the deep water are part of a different closed cycle.
Nonetheless it does appear that even if we are generous, natural geologic (abiotoic) gas release is low compared to human burning of fossil fuel. I'd have expected land and ocean to be a better sink for a pulse of new CO2, but the lockstep with which atmospheric pCO2 and the calculated human emissions rise is very interesting to me. it suggests that the natural cycle is operating near saturation in the short (century and less) term. cn
Nonetheless it does appear that even if we are generous, natural geologic (abiotoic) gas release is low compared to human burning of fossil fuel. I'd have expected land and ocean to be a better sink for a pulse of new CO2, but the lockstep with which atmospheric pCO2 and the calculated human emissions rise is very interesting to me. it suggests that the natural cycle is operating near saturation in the short (century and less) term. cn
Why are you two going on about CO2? CO2 and Temperature are only loosely correlated in history, and usually temperature goes up before co2. While it seems logical that co2 might increase temperature, it appears to work the opposite way.
Not that I am arguing against slowing down CO2 dumping into the atmosphere, but how can anyone look at those charts and come to the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming or even that most of the global warming that we are experiencing isn't natural given its regular occurrence? If anything it looks like it is ice age time from the charts.... wouldn't it be awesome if the temps started rapidly dropping over the next 1000 years. Too bad we won't be here to know that we are idiots.
Not that I am arguing against slowing down CO2 dumping into the atmosphere, but how can anyone look at those charts and come to the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming or even that most of the global warming that we are experiencing isn't natural given its regular occurrence? If anything it looks like it is ice age time from the charts.... wouldn't it be awesome if the temps started rapidly dropping over the next 1000 years. Too bad we won't be here to know that we are idiots.
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
you know what, I question the scientist who wrote that anyway.
why would (he/she) leave it as 11E^12, that's just bad grammar IMO
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Science journalists. ~sigh~ cn