Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese  Click to Translate to Myanmar (Burmese)

PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL
123456
Forum Home Forum Home > Off Topic Forum > Off Topic Discussion > Talk about anything
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - If Fossil fuels were gone tommrow...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Now tracking the new emerging South Africa Omicron Variant

If Fossil fuels were gone tommrow...

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: If Fossil fuels were gone tommrow...
    Posted: October 05 2019 at 10:22pm
How many people would die? I would hazard to guess with today's technology sans fossils the carrying capacity of the world would probably be about half of what it is today IF That. Within a couple decades (or less) there would probably be several billion less people on the Earth. Almost everything that we like that makes us comfortable heavily relies on fossil fuels.

If Global warming Is real AND we do nothing about it.... in 50 years do you see Billions less on mother Earth?   I seriously doubt it.   Yes life maybe a bit more difficult but we will adapt.   Even after a 100 years they are only talking about maybe a foot of sea level rise. With the way technology advances exponentially.... our Grand Kids will be fine, they will figure it out.

Even if Global Warming IS real I feel that the cure is worse than the disease. To me this is the greatest argument against global warming... Prove me Wrong!
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2019 at 10:42pm
<deleted>
Back to Top
EdwinSm, View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: April 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 24065
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote EdwinSm, Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2019 at 11:01pm
Pick a number from back in time, before the population started to grow with large use of fossil fuel.    You will find that your estimate of population halving seems overtly optimistic in the scenario that you gave.


ps. I cannot emotionally grasp that that would mean - the reduction would be absolutely horrendous. Like I cannot grasp the idea that around half of all humanity (from its beginning) is supposed to be alive today!
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 12:04am
To You only have to look at what happens when there's a power cut......

To see what happens with no fossil fuels...
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 9:39am
Yea Carbon of course if all our fuel disappeared in a day... 90%+ of us would be gone in 6 months.   On the other hand... if we had 5-10 years do you believe we could then make the transition seamlessly?
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 10:31am
Edwin yes your chart is very eye opening...   however over that time frame there has been other technological advantages besides fossil fuels, so it might not be that bad.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 6:53pm
I have always Prepped with the fact we would not have oil/gas/electric. I have always kept 4 - 5 cords of wood so I would have at least 2 winters of needed warmth. I have put in a full set of fire bricks and getting a full set of glass for my insert. I have the theory sh^t happens! I have put in two man felling saws, along with sharpening tools and many ways to split logs. I need to build a folding buck holder. I have the plans just need to do it. If you have heat and a way to cook it helps.

Put in seeds but need to put in more seeds. Back of my house faces south so it will be planted in food. I would put in chickens and rabbits but not up for that at this time.

Water is close enough I can get it an sanitize it. Have all the methods to do that also.

I have left information on all of this information in notebooks so my son will have some help if I am gone.

Like a pandemic some will live and some will die! Just the way it is.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 9:15pm

https://www.apnews.com/933b49681b0d47d3a005d356f35251ab

As a person with right wing leanings... I find it hilarious that this is coming from Micheal Moore of all people.

Alternative Energy is still just an alternative.   Even after decades and billion in development we don't have anything ready for prime time.

What choice do we have?
Back to Top
EdwinSm, View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: April 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 24065
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote EdwinSm, Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 11:06pm
Originally posted by DeepThinker DeepThinker wrote:

however over that time frame there has been other technological advantages besides fossil fuels, so it might not be that bad.


For me what is of more concern is human reaction.

For example when the are wide spread power cuts in cities, it is not unusual for riots to break out.

I think that in a rapid power down (with fossil fuels this could say a political act such as shutting down the Straits of Hormuz) public discord will create a lot of extra problems.
Eg if rioters burn down a supermarket, that will mean it is unlikely to be rebuilt and all the people in that locality have lost a chance to get food in the future and so this makes their long term chance of survival that much worst.

As for technology, that will buy some time. Say having solar power with a battery backup will work as long as the batteries last. This will mean that you could outlast many people, but in the long term it is not much good. A small hydro-power system might last a lot longer, but few of us will have that.    What would you cook on? Wood (biomass) stoves are great, but with the current population levels the wood supply would not last long, leading to an ecological collapse not experienced in the pre-fossil fuel era.

I suppose if you are looking at technology you need to look at what used to be called "appropriate technology" - ie simple systems, that are still in advance of the middle ages. eg Silos to hold green fodder (better than just drying hay), solar cookers (for when the sun is shining), good wood-burning cooking stove (using about 1/3rd of the wood of an open fire). A well insulated house will help, but most houses are just too large for a power down situation. In housing passive solar or planting shade trees depending on the geographic location might be more sustainable than heat exchange pumps.

(sorry for rambling thoughts - the wife calls so no time to edit the above!)
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 12:31am
FluMom has it about right.

"Sh1t Happens!"

If you look at human history and pre-history, you find THOUSANDS (I'm not exaggerating) thousands of extinct civilizations. An extant one like ours is a rarity by comparison. Disease, climate change, invasion, sea level rise, are all among the culprits.

Modern people seem to think their civilization, protected as it is by its size and technology, is invincible. I'll bet the ancient Romans thought that too - As did the Greeks,
Accadians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians    Sumarians.....................
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 2:46am
Our arrogance will be our downfall....
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 2:52am
Another consideration is the vast amount of fertilizer made using natural gas by the Haber-Bosch process. That discovery kicked off a new phase of human population growth. It's believed that half the nitrogen in our cells might have come from the Haber-Bosch process.






https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38305504

"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 2:27pm
The Haber-Bosch,system ,saved billions from starvation,

Unfortunately what people did was to have More Children....


https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

It took a thousand years to put the first   billion people on this planet

We are now putting 1 billion souls on this planet every 7/8years............

We are the only species of animal that has changed its environment......for the worst.....

We are on a path of self destruction......

Imagine the Earth as a spaceship......it is..... On a endless loop going round an round the same course,

For Millions of years it was populated by Dinosaurs,they didn't burn any fossil fuel they could have it was there before they evolved,
Then a comet wiped them out, fast forward 65 million years, a creature came along, started digging up carbon that has been stored for Millions of years,changing the chemistry of the planets atmosphere.....

Will they last as long as the Dinosaurs...mmmm..

not very likely..

Dumb and Dumber
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 4:32pm
SHARE
Climate change means geoengineering under pressure to keep our CO2 budgets under control
ABC Science / By Malcolm Sutton
Posted1 day ago, updated3 days ago
Ship tracks viewed from space
Reflective clouds created by human industries like shipping can be seen from space.(Supplied: NASA)
It's 2029 and every merchant ship in the world is fertilising the ocean with iron — a last-ditch effort to draw carbon dioxide from the air as global emissions near the point of no return.

This global attempt to remove CO2 from the atmosphere has been 11 years in the making — since 2018, when the IPCC Global Warming of 1.5C special report warned that emissions reductions alone would not be enough to restrict global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would also be required.

Key points:
Carbon dioxide removal techniques will be required to restrict global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the 2018 IPCC report
A UN Expert Group has reviewed potential marine geoengineering techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Carbon removal at a global scale needs to be in effect within 10 years, experts said
The hope is that the powdered iron will trigger a bloom of phytoplankton that will remove a gigatonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, by taking the carbon to the ocean floor when they die.

There's evidence to support the concept — iron-stimulated blooms have been observed in nature for some time, sparked by events such as the 2010 eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, and Saharan desert dust plumes.

In 2029, it's just one of a number of ideas about to be employed across the planet to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Proposed marine geoengineering techniques
A recent working group reviewed a wide range of proposed marine geoengineering techniques.(Supplied: GESAMP)
How best to remove CO2?
Back in the present, and as signs of global warming continue to mount, a push is on to find ways to draw CO2 from the atmosphere.

"It's now abundantly clear from the IPCC 1.5C special report that if we're going to restrict warming to 2 degrees or less, then mitigation of the reduction of emissions on its own is not enough," said Philip Boyd, professor of marine biogeochemistry at the University of Tasmania.

"We have to go beyond that and we now have to intervene in the climate."

Professor Boyd recently co-chaired a working group for the UN advisory organisation, Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) that reviewed 27 potential marine geoengineering techniques that had been studied or modelled to varying degrees worldwide.

The group particularly focused on:

Iron fertilisation across 10 per cent of the Earth's oceans by utilising every merchant ship in the world
Adding lime to 10 per cent of the oceans to enhance alkalinity, increase CO2 uptake and counter seawater acidity
Drawing up cool, nutrient-rich water from the depths with large pipes to create an artificial upwelling that provokes algal blooms while also cooling the ocean's surface
Injecting liquified CO2 into the seabed in depressions and trenches where it can be stored for 1,000 years
Increasing the ocean's reflectivity by drawing up cold water to increase Arctic ice thickness, or by adding foams, micro-bubbles or reflective particles to the surface
Brightening marine clouds by spraying fine seawater into low lying stratocumulus clouds to increase their reflectivity and reduce surface temperatures
Farming seaweed on a large scale before entombing it deep in the ocean to sequester its carbon, or process it for biofuels
In short, the group found a lot of potential. But more research, modelling and pilot programs are required, especially in consideration of the massive scales required.

"What we are trying to do now is put some incentives out there, create some of these models for feedback," Professor Boyd said.

"But right now I can't see any one of them sticking out head-and-shoulders above the rest."

Sahara dust storm over the Atlantic
Saharan dust storms over the Atlantic ocean fertilise oceans with iron minerals.(Supplied: NASA)
Old concepts and natural evidence
The concept of using reflective particles to reduce warming was floated as early as 1965, when scientific advisors to US President Lyndon Johnson recognised that increased CO2 in the atmosphere could bring about climatic change.

They raised the prospect of spreading small reflective particles over large oceanic areas in an effort to reduce warming and inhibit hurricane formation.

More recently, scientists have investigated spraying fine seawater into low-lying stratocumulus clouds above the Great Barrier Reef to make them brighter and reflect more sunlight. The hope is that this will keep the water temperature low enough to prevent coral bleaching.

Scientists internationally have also been modelling a strategy to inject aerosols high into the stratosphere to replicate outcomes from the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, in which reflective sulfuric acid droplets drew down average global temperatures by 0.5C.

A planet-sized sunshade?
Should we try and turn the stratosphere into a giant global sunshade to stop Earth from overheating?

Read more
But Andrew Lenton, an ocean carbon cycle modeler with the CSIRO, said geoengineering of this kind could have transnational consequences.

"You're changing the balance, changing precipitation, and there is some really, really significant side effects that can go here," he said.

Dr Lenton also pointed out that such techniques would not remove CO2 from the atmosphere, which in high levels reduced pH levels at the ocean's surface and created acidity.

"It might be like kids in a candy store with all these options available to us," he said.

"But when you start to dig a bit deeper, everything has risk or potential challenges associated with it."

Humanity's CO2 budget
The IPCC in 2018 warned humanity could only emit another 420 gigatonnes if it is to have a 66 per chance of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius
Uncertainties exist due to transient climate responses to high emissions, such as changes in the Earth's radiation absorption, thawing permafrost and wetlands releasing methane
The IPCC added that 'all analysed pathways' included a degree of carbon dioxide removal to neutralise emissions from sources where no mitigation measures had been identified
Looking for ideas with multiple benefits
Professor Boyd said there was a preference internationally for techniques that had multiple benefits for the environment, along with those that did not step too far from the realms of financial reality.

"There has been so much sensationalism around this, with people talking about mirrors in space, or thousands of these bobbing pipes in the ocean," he said.

"It's become a little bit sci-fi.

"We really want to bring that back to earth by exploring work that involves environmental co-benefits."

Scientists have been studying the effects of acidification on reefs.(Supplied: Aaron Takeo Ninokawa)
This included the concept of "regenerative agriculture", which could see mined minerals with high CO2 absorption qualities worked into farmland as fertiliser.

"It comes at a low cost, you're sequestering carbon, you're fertilising, and you're also boosting the soil profile," Professor Boyd said.

"It might also be possible that you could further till that soil to build up its profile for biochar."

Biochar is a carbon-rich material like charcoal that is produced from biomass through slow pyrolysis rather than incineration, that is, heating in the absence of oxygen rather than burning.

Food and agricultural waste and even manure can be turned into biochar and added to soil, where it sequesters carbon and helps retain soil moisture and nutrients, subsequently bolstering crops when matched with the right varieties and conditions.

Biochar, such as this collection created from bamboo, can also help retain soil moisture.(ABC Sunshine Coast: Jacqueline Street)
Just 10 years to work it out
Trees also capture and store carbon dioxide — for as long as they stay alive, at least — and their planting in recent decades has been touted by commercial entities who claim to be carbon neutral as a result.

Dr Lenton cited a colleague who modelled growing trees on every available piece of land worldwide under high emission models.

"But she was not even able to get to a medium scenario [of global emissions] by basically removing all the agricultural land and turning that into forest," he said.

"The reality is, the scale is incredible, and there is competition for land.

"You can't turn all sub-Saharan Africa into a forest and think the people there are going to be happy with that."

Water availability could stymie plans to plant billions of trees to capture carbon.(ABC Rural: Kim Honan)
Research published earlier this year, however, estimated there was enough suitable unused land on Earth for re-forestration to store about 205 gigatonnes of carbon.

"We can't just look at these things in isolation," Dr Lenton said.

"We may potentially be able to plant a huge amount of forests but planting eucalyptus, for example, requires a huge amount of water."

He believes humanity has only 10 years to have large-scale carbon dioxide reduction schemes up and running.

These schemes would need to be making a significant dent in carbon dioxide levels, as by that point CO2 emissions will likely have reached the limit required to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

But that, Dr Lenton said, was the root problem — one that casts a shadow over everything scientists were potentially fast-tracking to draw carbon from the sky.

"If emissions are not going to be falling globally, is this something even worth doing?"

Want more science from across the ABC?


Connect with ABC News
ABC Help
© 2019 ABC
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 9:51pm
During the Yonger Dryers episode within a couple decades the temperature shot down 10c and stayed that way for over a thousands years.   Then in a similarly short period of time the temp shot back up 10c.   Sea-levels whipsawed 100's of feet.   Some say there is even evidence for a 30ft 24hur world wide sea level rise (mind blown don't know if I could believe it). Nothing humans have done so far can compare to whatever caused this. Mother Nature will do what ever she well damn well pleases.   And you know what?   When she was done we where left with this unprecedentedly calm world that we now live in.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 10:17pm
Most of the CO2 we produce is actually absorbed in "the system".   Only a tiny amount stays in the atmosphere.   So what that tells me... without us the world would be running a carbon deficit, and we could see a catastrophic CO2 free world (or at least dangerously low levels).

If I am doing my math right... we should only have to slow down a bit for Mother Nature to catch up to us.   She is an incredible carbon sink.   You guys were fussing about nitrogen earlier in the thread... but the other super important molecule for them is CO2.   
That is if our goal is to be CO2 nuetral... but I don't even know if that is what our goal should be.   CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food! However f you want to fight pollution I am all in!
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 5:04am
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 7:24am
Fascinating (if terrifying) article, Carbon.

I love the new avatar DT!
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 8:16am
wow Carbon as far as I know of... that is the first evidence of impact in the southern hemisphere that I know of.

Unbelievably evidence suggests the earth was not just hit once by space rocks, but probably hit with a shot gun effect.   Perhaps not just once but twice... at the beginning and at the end of the Younger Dryes.

The most crazy to think about is the fact there is evidence for at least 6 civilization altering type impacts in the last few THOUSAND years.   Evidence suggests we have been hit at least 500 times in the last 10,000 years. Thankfully most have been closer to the Tunguska event or the the Chelyabinsk than the one that took out the dinosaurs.   Regardless the threat is real and we have seen it in historical times.

There is very little human history before 10,000 years ago.   Civilization didn't start as we know it till about 5,000-6,000 years ago.   These dates are not coincidences and relate strongly to what was discussed in the previous paragraph.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 9:04am
You want to hear something crazy? It is the second week of October and meteorological winter has already started! The Polar Vortex is already fully formed.   The Jet streams are blasting, and a big part of America will get snow this week. It may even go as far south as North Texas.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 4:13pm
It's only the start, if you believe the modeling the planet is in for a rough ride,

One things for sure the planet will still be here, we humans will still be here, but it won't be anything like the life we lead now......

I worry about my grandchildren ,

It will 2070 when the oldest is my age....

I'll be long gone......
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 4:31pm
Modeling, hum..............

I did a course in modeling a year or so ago ('hardest one I ever took) and the very first lesson included the phrase: "all models are wrong." The explanation of that was very interesting. All models ARE wrong, but those using no models arrive at conclusions even further from the truth. Those people using several different models and combining the results got closest to predicting the correct outcomes (as high as 95% accruacy sometimes!).

Climate change modellers are each using different models and arriving at similar conclusions. This suggests that they are at least on the right track. What worries me about the mathematics used, is that each model seems to be based on different axioms. Each leaves out sections of known science. (for instance, CO2 models incorporate methane but normally ignore the methane from methane hydrates and the sea level rise calculators do not usually include isostatic readjustment.) This and the fact that most individually use only one model, suggests that the deleterious effects of climate change could be considerably worse than current predictions.

Still, the models keep improving so they may end up accurate soon.
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 7:18pm
I wish there was a way but I would bet good money that in 5 years it will obvious the planet is cooling and not warming.

The Sun is going quiet, so the next couple decades don't look good for warming.   The equinox is progressing so the next few hundred years to the next couple thousand years don't look good either.

Maybe global warming will save us from the Ice Age that is now over due.   I sure hope so but I doubt it.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 9:54pm
Home News Tech Health Planet Earth Strange News Animals History Culture Space & Physics
Live Science is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more
Crash! 10 Biggest Impact Craters on Earth
By Becky Oskin 28 April 2014

    

Ancient scars

An artist’s concept of the giant asteroid or comet plunging into what is now Chesapeake Bay 35 million years ago.
(Image: © Science)
Whether they're the size of a molehill or a mountain, meteorite impacts are one of the most destructive forces in the solar system. Here on Earth, flying space debris triggered mass extinctions, but the same deadly asteroids might also have delivered the seeds of life soon after Earth was born. The effects of asteroid impacts linger for billions of years. Here are the 10 biggest impact craters known, from largest to smallest.

Vredefort crater


In the abraded heart of South Africa's Vredefort impact crater lurk striking green-black rocks, some of the only remnants of a magma sea that once filled the gaping crater.
(Image: © NASA)
The oldest impact crater on Earth is also the largest. Vredefort crater in South Africa, also called the Vredefort Dome, was originally 185 miles (300 kilometers) across, scientists estimate. A meteorite or asteroid bigger than South Africa's Table Mountain blasted out the giant crater 2.02 billion years ago.

Sudbury crater
Sudbury crater
(Image: © NASA)
Sudbury crater in Ontario, Canada, clocks in at 81 miles (130 km) wide and 1.85 billion years old, close in age and size to Vredefort crater in South Africa. The original crater is believed to have sprawled 160 miles (260 km). Rock fragments from the impact have been found in Minnesota, over 500 miles (800 km) away.

Chicxulub crater
Chicxulub crater
(Image: © LPI)
Chicxulub crater's discovery clinched what was once a wild theory: that a meteor impact wiped out the dinosaurs. A thin layer of exotic iridium metal from a meteor impact had been detected worldwide at Cretaceous mass extinction before Chicxulub was found. Now, the meteorite that carved the Chicxulub crater in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula is widely thought to have caused or greatly contributed to the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous 65 million years ago, including the end of the dinosaurs. Some scientists think Chicxulub's original crater may have been bigger than Sudbury crater in Ontario. Estimates of its original diameter range up to 150 miles (240 km) in diameter, and its current size is 93 miles (150 km).

Popigai crater
Popigai crater
(Image: © NASA)
A rare find is buried in Russia's Popigai crater: diamonds. Some 35 million years ago, a meteorite crashed into carbon-rich graphite rock deposits in Siberia, and the impact's immense pressures and temperatures converted the carbon into diamonds. The crater is 62 miles (100 km) wide and holds massive diamond reserves, according to the Russian government.

Manicouagan crater
Manicouagan crater
(Image: © Landsat)
Our first lake-filled crater, Manicouagan in Quebec is one the largest and best-preserved crater on the planet. The 62-mile-wide (100 km) crater is 214 million years old.

Acraman crater
Acraman crater
(Image: © NASA Earth Observatory)
Lake Acraman fills this round impact crater, excavated 580 million years ago in South Australia. The crater measures 56 miles (90 kilometers) in diameter. Impact ejecta from the crater can be found in the Flinders Range 185 miles (300 km) to the east, among rocks with fossils of the first complex life forms on Earth.

Chesapeake Bay crater
Chesapeake Bay crater
(Image: © WHOI/USGS)
Buried under seafloor muds, Chesapeake Bay Crater offshore of Virginia is an estimated 35 million years old. The curving western shoreline of Chesapeake Bay takes its shape from the 53-mile-wide (85 km) marine crater. A drilling core revealed the first hints that a large impact crater was buried beneath the bay in 1983, when the core brought up an 8-inch-thick (20 centimeters) layer of impact ejecta.

Morokweng crater
Morokweng meteorite
(Image: © J.Hills/Science Museum London)
Morokweng Crater is buried beneath South Africa's Kalahari Desert: Geologists discovered it through remote sensing surveys. But scientists got a surprise when they drilled into the crater looking for rock samples to confirm the impact. The remains of the meteorite that created this crater were still in its depth. The drill brought back a 10-inch (25 centimeter) fragment of the original meteorite from about 842 yards (770 meters) below the surface. Morokweng formed 145 million years ago and is 44 miles (70 km) wide.

Kara crater
Kara crater
(Image: © NASA Earth Observatory.)
Kara crater is a 70.3-million-year-old eroded crater exposed in Russia's Yugorsky Peninsula. Researchers think the 40-mile-wide (65 km) crater was once more than 75 miles (120 km) in diameter.

Beaverhead crater
Beaverhead crater
(Image: © USDA)
This 600-million-year-old crater spans Montana and Idaho and is the second-largest impact crater in the United States. Little remains at the surface of the 37-mile-wide (60 km) crater, which wasn't discovered until the 1990s. That's when shatter cones — cone-shaped, violently-shocked rock — were found in Beaverhead in southwestern Montana. The crater is centered in Challis, Idaho.

RECENT NEWS


Live Science is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.

Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Cookies policy
Topics
Update Consent
© Future US, Inc. 11 West 42nd Street, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10036.
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 9:56pm
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 3245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 10:41pm
carbon being Australian... what do you think about the theory that the some time in ancient times 3/4 of the continent was wiped out by some catastrophe? I guess there is even a legend of an ancient war... something comparable to the veda texts from India?
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 09 2019 at 1:45am
Not sure about that,but I do know that long ago in Australias past the center of Australia was fertile and green,

But when Papua New Guinea emerged from the oceans due to volcanic activity,pushing their Highlands high in the air,

That changed the weather patterns ,hence the center of Australia is bone dry desert,

We are a vast country, but the habital areas are small, I live in the most isolated city in the world.....
Love it.....
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 9:29am
Originally posted by DeepThinker DeepThinker wrote:

Most of the CO2 we produce is actually absorbed in "the system".   Only a tiny amount stays in the atmosphere.   So what that tells me... without us the world would be running a carbon deficit, and we could see a catastrophic CO2 free world (or at least dangerously low levels).

If I am doing my math right... we should only have to slow down a bit for Mother Nature to catch up to us.   She is an incredible carbon sink.   You guys were fussing about nitrogen earlier in the thread... but the other super important molecule for them is CO2.   
That is if our goal is to be CO2 nuetral... but I don't even know if that is what our goal should be.   CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food! However f you want to fight pollution I am all in!


The oceans are absorbing vast amounts of CO2 - but it's increasing it's acidity at an alarming and wreaking havoc on organisms that build skeletons or shells of calcium carbonate. I suspect that the sea life that was thriving at the pH of just a few years ago would argue with your estimate of just how high carbon levels in the environment should be. That whole "CO2 is plant food" thing is nothing more than a product of lobbying by industries that cause it, and paid shills like Marc Morano.





"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2019 at 9:43am
Yes, we absolutely can change the composition of the atmosphere, increase temperatures by capturing more solar radiation, and change the weather. We live in a thin layer of gas clinging to the surface of the planet that is currently being loaded up with phenomenal amounts of greenhouse gases each year. This goldfish bowl is not big enough for all of us to be pooping in it at that rate without consequences.




I'll post this image again because it bears repeating. It represents all the liquid water (in green) and air (in pink) on Earth. I agree with Carbon - we need to take this much more seriously for the sake of future generations.






"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 11 2019 at 6:59pm
BBC News - Climate change: Big lifestyle changes are the only answer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49997755
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 23 2019 at 4:06pm

The muck that’s been accumulating at the bottom of this lake for 20,000 years is like a climate time capsule. Christopher R. Moore, CC BY-ND
New evidence that an extraterrestrial collision 12,800 years ago triggered an abrupt climate change for Earth
Christopher R. Moore, University of South Carolina
October 22, 2019 5.46am EDT
What kicked off the Earth’s rapid cooling 12,800 years ago?

In the space of just a couple of years, average temperatures abruptly dropped, resulting in temperatures as much as 14 degrees Fahrenheit cooler in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere. If a drop like that happened today, it would mean the average temperature of Miami Beach would quickly change to that of current Montreal, Canada. Layers of ice in Greenland show that this cool period in the Northern Hemisphere lasted about 1,400 years.

This climate event, called the Younger Dryas by scientists, marked the beginning of a decline in ice-age megafauna, such as mammoth and mastodon, eventually leading to extinction of more than 35 genera of animals across North America. Although disputed, some research suggests that Younger Dryas environmental changes led to a population decline among the Native Americans known for their distinctive Clovis spear points.

Conventional geologic wisdom blames the Younger Dryas on the failure of glacial ice dams holding back huge lakes in central North America and the sudden, massive blast of freshwater they released into the north Atlantic. This freshwater influx shut down ocean circulation and ended up cooling the climate.

Some geologists, however, subscribe to what is called the impact hypothesis: the idea that a fragmented comet or asteroid collided with the Earth 12,800 years ago and caused this abrupt climate event. Along with disrupting the glacial ice-sheet and shutting down ocean currents, this hypothesis holds that the extraterrestrial impact also triggered an “impact winter” by setting off massive wildfires that blocked sunlight with their smoke.

The evidence is mounting that the cause of the Younger Dryas’ cooling climate came from outer space. My own recent fieldwork at a South Carolina lake that has been around for at least 20,000 years adds to the growing pile of evidence.

A collision from space would leave its mark on Earth. Vadim Sadovski/Shutterstock.com
What would an Earth impact leave behind?
Around the globe, scientists analyzing ocean, lake, terrestrial and ice core records have identified large peaks in particles associated with burning, such as charcoal and soot, right at the time the Younger Dryas kicked in. These would be natural results of the cataclysmic wildfires you would expect to see in the wake of Earth taking an extraterrestrial hit. As much as 10% of global forests and grasslands may have burned at this time.

Looking for more clues, researchers have pored through the widely distributed Younger Dryas Boundary stratigraphic layer. That’s a distinctive layer of sediments laid down over a given period of time by processes like large floods or movement of sediment by wind or water. If you imagine the surface of the Earth as like a cake, the Younger Dryas Boundary is the layer that was frosted onto its surface 12,800 years ago, subsequently covered by other layers over the millennia.

In the last few years, scientists have found a variety of exotic impact-related materials in the Younger Dryas Boundary layer all over the globe.

These include high-temperature iron and silica-rich tiny magnetic spheres, nanodiamonds, soot, high-temperature melt-glass, and elevated concentrations of nickel, osmium, iridium and platinum.

While many studies have provided evidence supporting the Younger Dryas impact, others have failed to replicate evidence. Some have suggested that materials such as microspherules and nanodiamonds can be formed by other processes and do not require the impact of a comet or asteroid.

White Pond has been part of this landscape for 20,000 years or more. Christopher R. Moore
A view of 12,800 years ago from White Pond
In the southeastern United States, there are no ice cores to turn to in the quest for ancient climate data. Instead, geologists and archaeologists like me can look to natural lakes. They accumulate sediments over time, preserving layer by layer a record of past climate and environmental conditions.

White Pond is one such natural lake, situated in southern Kershaw County, South Carolina. It covers nearly 26 hectares and is generally shallow, less than 2 meters even at its deepest portions. Within the lake itself, peat and organic-rich mud and silt deposits upwards of 6-meters thick have accumulated at least since the peak of the last ice age more than 20,000 years ago.

Collecting sediment cores from White Pond in 2016. Christopher R. Moore
So in 2016, my colleagues and I extracted sediment from the bottom of White Pond. Using 4-meter-long tubes, we were able to preserve the order and integrity of the many sediment layers that have accumulated over the eons.

The long sediment cores are cut in half in order to extract samples for analysis. Christopher R. Moore
Based on preserved seeds and wood charcoal that we radiocarbon dated, my team determined there was about a 10-centimeter thick layer that dated to the Younger Dryas Boundary, from between 12,835 and 12,735 years ago. That is where we concentrated our hunt for evidence of an extraterrestrial impact.

We were particularly looking for platinum. This dense metal is present in the Earth’s crust only at very low concentrations but is common in comets and asteroids. Previous research had identified a large “platinum anomaly” – widespread elevated levels of platinum, consistent with a global extraterrestrial impact source in Younger Dryas layers from Greenland ice cores as well as across North and South America.

Most recently, the Younger Dryas platinum anomaly has been found in South Africa. This discovery significantly extends the geographic range of the anomaly and adds support to the idea that the Younger Dryas impact was indeed a global event.

Volcanic eruptions are another possible source of platinum, but Younger Dryas Boundary sites with elevated platinum do not have other markers of large-scale volcanism.

More evidence of an extraterrestrial impact
In the White Pond samples, we did indeed find high levels of platinum. The sediments also had an unusual ratio of platinum to palladium.

Both of these rare earth elements occur naturally in very small quantities. The fact that there was so much more platinum than palladium suggests that the extra platinum came from an outside source, such as atmospheric fallout in the aftermath of an extraterrestrial impact.

My team also found a large increase in soot, indicative of large-scale regional wildfires. Additionally, the amount of fungal spores that are usually associated with the dung of large herbivores decreased in this layer compared to previous time periods, suggesting a sudden decline in ice-age megafauna in the region at this time.

Photomicrograph of <em>Sporormiella</em> – fungal spores associated with the dung of megaherbivores – from White Pond. Angelina G. Perrotti
While my colleagues and I can show that the platinum and soot anomalies and fungal spore decline all happened at the same time, we cannot prove a cause.

The data from White Pond are, however, consistent with the growing body of evidence that a comet or asteroid collision caused continent-scale environmental calamity 12,800 years ago, via vast burning and a brief impact winter. The climate change associated with the Younger Dryas, megafaunal extinctions and temporary declines or shifts in early Clovis hunter-gatherer populations in North America at this time may have their origins in space.

A White Pond sediment core is like a timeline of the stratigraphic layers. What researchers found in each layer provides hints of climate and environment at that time. Shutterstock.com/Allen West/NASA/Sedwick C (2008) PLoS Biol 6(4): e99/Martin Pate/Southeast Archaeological Center
[ Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter. ]

Comment on this article
Christopher R. Moore
Archaeologist and Special Projects Director at the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program and South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina
Christopher R. Moore does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of South Carolina provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

You might also like
Did a large meteorite hit the earth 12,800 years ago? Here’s new evidence
What historic megadroughts in the western US tell us about our climate future
60 days in Iceberg Alley, drilling for marine sediment to decipher Earth's climate 3 million years ago
Monkey fossils found in Serbia offer clues about life in a warmer world millions of years ago
Who we are
Partners and funders
Contact us
Copyright © 2010–2019
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.đź––

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down