Permafrost Melting Will Cost Us $70 Trillion

[Rodent + 1,424]

9 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This is a fine line to walk... freedom crusaders on this forum might disagree with authorities modifying peoples behaviour... 

Indeed. And as they should.  Any restriction on freedoms should be scrutinized to the utmost and then scrutinized again. 

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

21 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This is a fine line to walk... freedom crusaders on this forum might disagree with authorities modifying peoples behaviour... 

They're free to. That's the great thing about freedom of speech.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Pardon me while I try to get back on the subject of Permafrost melting/degrading/thawing

Multiple points to consider here, as a matter of science not hyperbole. First, it's been "melting" since the 60's. Anyone care to look up the CO2 levels then? I'll save you the trouble, about 100 ppm less than today. But saying the permafrost is melting is exactly the same as saying the ocean is acidifying.

The ocean is Basic, not acid as any litmus test will show you, and given it's salt content (a buffer), it's not going Acidic by any known process. What Might be happening is it might be getting slightly less basic, but it still has a LONG way to go to become acidic. 

Likewise, the permafrost can be thousands of feet deep, and we know this from published core data and oil companies' data. Do you believe it's ALL melting, or are we talking about the last meter? The earth is a massive heat sink and rock acts as an insulator. We know from SAGD results times thousands of well pairs and dozens of years with state of the art instrumentation that even when Trying to heat the earth, it isn't very cooperative. When the fires shut down production, producing well pairs took as long as six months to reestablish communication and produce again. Where did all that "heat" go? They are pumping in giga joules of thermal energy and the best the AGW crowd can come up with from sketchy "simulations" and "models" is a paltry 2watts per square meter. Does anyone with an IQ over room temperature believe that's enough to "melt" the permafrost? Why not just boil the ocean? 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Ward Smith

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

What seems to be missing from this thread, as respects "setting an example" in personal conduct and in doing so with light or lighter costs, is that it is quite possible to substantially lower your personal expenses AND reduce your personal CO2 outputs with very small changes.  Specifically: as far as your car goes, I can build you an electric bicycle that will go plenty fast - up to 45 mph on the flat - and has lots of range, starting at 40 miles and up to 80 miles before recharge  (which takes two hours).  You cost of running that bicycle all day is a dime  (ten American cents).  Now remember: this bike needs no registration, no license (marker) plate, thus no operator's license, no insurance certificate, and no insurance expense.  It is cost-free transport.  I can toss in a pair of saddlebags that will haul your groceries and a basket up front and a rack on the back, and you, too, can zip around carrying lots of "stuff."  So, other than for heavy rain, who needs a car? 

As far as your "solar panels" go, the cheaper solution is to build yourself a concave disc with a copper pipe filled with a boiling fluid at the focal point.  Since your sheets of steel contain no rare earths or heavy metals, unlike solar panels, you get to develop quite hot water on the cheap.  Now the advantage over panels is that you can install a burner head underneath that focal point so that when the sun stops shining you can maintain the heat at the focal point by firing up the burner.  That system allows for a seamless transition.  You can use that steam generated to either drive a small piston engine and generator, if electricity is your goal, or use the heated steam as a space heating or hot water source.  again, once you set up those sheets of steel you are all done, cheap and easy installation, and starts saving you serious money right away. 

Your next step is to convince your State or Town authorities to build simple bike paths parallel to the roadways.  You can build these paths out of cross-laminated timber (CLT) and then mount the CLT sheets onto pilings pounded into the ground and with the surface set say two feet higher than the roadway, so the snow being plowed off the road goes underneath, and not in some mound blocking the bike path.   Yes, that costs a few bucks, but remember, that dramatically relieves congestion, thus lowering the future costs.  think about it. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 4/26/2019 at 9:08 PM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This is a fine line to walk... freedom crusaders on this forum might disagree with authorities modifying peoples behaviour... 

Ah yes, the Law of Unintended Consequences.

(aka the "what the heck have I done" realization)

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 4/25/2019 at 7:11 PM, Rodent said:

they could also refrain from living in glass buildings I guess, and could move to California where they get the "opportunity" to pay 1percent extra on their restaurant check to offset the carbon footprint of their meal.  

And speaking of meals, they could go vegan since the rich white man's meatful diet is not only offensive, it is carbon intense. 

 

I like mine Pittsburg style. Burned on the outside and rare in the middle. You get pure carbon and a variety of meaty flavors. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

What seems to be missing from this thread, as respects "setting an example" in personal conduct and in doing so with light or lighter costs, is that it is quite possible to substantially lower your personal expenses AND reduce your personal CO2 outputs with very small changes.  Specifically: as far as your car goes, I can build you an electric bicycle that will go plenty fast - up to 45 mph on the flat - and has lots of range, starting at 40 miles and up to 80 miles before recharge  (which takes two hours).  You cost of running that bicycle all day is a dime  (ten American cents).  Now remember: this bike needs no registration, no license (marker) plate, thus no operator's license, no insurance certificate, and no insurance expense.  It is cost-free transport.  I can toss in a pair of saddlebags that will haul your groceries and a basket up front and a rack on the back, and you, too, can zip around carrying lots of "stuff."  So, other than for heavy rain, who needs a car? 

As far as your "solar panels" go, the cheaper solution is to build yourself a concave disc with a copper pipe filled with a boiling fluid at the focal point.  Since your sheets of steel contain no rare earths or heavy metals, unlike solar panels, you get to develop quite hot water on the cheap.  Now the advantage over panels is that you can install a burner head underneath that focal point so that when the sun stops shining you can maintain the heat at the focal point by firing up the burner.  That system allows for a seamless transition.  You can use that steam generated to either drive a small piston engine and generator, if electricity is your goal, or use the heated steam as a space heating or hot water source.  again, once you set up those sheets of steel you are all done, cheap and easy installation, and starts saving you serious money right away. 

Your next step is to convince your State or Town authorities to build simple bike paths parallel to the roadways.  You can build these paths out of cross-laminated timber (CLT) and then mount the CLT sheets onto pilings pounded into the ground and with the surface set say two feet higher than the roadway, so the snow being plowed off the road goes underneath, and not in some mound blocking the bike path.   Yes, that costs a few bucks, but remember, that dramatically relieves congestion, thus lowering the future costs.  think about it. 

Someday I want 2 collapsible electric bikes for traveling. Just for jaunts on bike trails around the country. I am waiting for the right price point. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 4/24/2019 at 3:21 PM, Jan van Eck said:

OK, so let's for the argument suppose that human actions are generating excess heat. 

It is not that we are generating excess heat - as you said the sun fuels the earth - it's that our emissions are changing the amount of energy that leaves earth.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I like mine Pittsburg style. Burned on the outside and rare in the middle. You get pure carbon and a variety of meaty flavors. 

I like the taste of charred meat too.  But the crust is not pure carbon - not even close - it contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines which are carcinogenic.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterocyclic_amine

I still eat it but at least I don't lie about the chemical makeup; I understand the risks and do it anyways because it feels good.

This forum is so anti-science (not really pointed at you ronwagn) it's sick.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

13 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Pardon me while I try to get back on the subject of Permafrost melting/degrading/thawing

Multiple points to consider here, as a matter of science not hyperbole. First, it's been "melting" since the 60's. Anyone care to look up the CO2 levels then? I'll save you the trouble, about 100 ppm less than today. But saying the permafrost is melting is exactly the same as saying the ocean is acidifying.

The ocean is Basic, not acid as any litmus test will show you, and given it's salt content (a buffer), it's not going Acidic by any known process. What Might be happening is it might be getting slightly less basic, but it still has a LONG way to go to become acidic. 

Likewise, the permafrost can be thousands of feet deep, and we know this from published core data and oil companies' data. Do you believe it's ALL melting, or are we talking about the last meter? The earth is a massive heat sink and rock acts as an insulator. We know from SAGD results times thousands of well pairs and dozens of years with state of the art instrumentation that even when Trying to heat the earth, it isn't very cooperative. When the fires shut down production, producing well pairs took as long as six months to reestablish communication and produce again. Where did all that "heat" go? They are pumping in giga joules of thermal energy and the best the AGW crowd can come up with from sketchy "simulations" and "models" is a paltry 2watts per square meter. Does anyone with an IQ over room temperature believe that's enough to "melt" the permafrost? Why not just boil the ocean? 

NaCl has essentially no buffering capacity.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

What seems to be missing from this thread, as respects "setting an example" in personal conduct and in doing so with light or lighter costs, is that it is quite possible to substantially lower your personal expenses AND reduce your personal CO2 outputs with very small changes.  Specifically: as far as your car goes, I can build you an electric bicycle that will go plenty fast - up to 45 mph on the flat - and has lots of range, starting at 40 miles and up to 80 miles before recharge  (which takes two hours). 

I own multiple purely pedal bicycles, walk, and my car is a 1.5L Toyota Yaris that even after 7 years only has 80,00Km on it.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 4/24/2019 at 8:43 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

You mean the scientists of a more sceptical bent are by definition shills for Big Oil?

"Big Oil" believes in anthropogenic climate change - it's only science deniers that don't.

http://www.sinopecgroup.com/group/en/socialresponsibility/Green/

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/Climate-change

https://www.shell.ca/en_ca/sustainability/environment.html

The oil companies aren't dumb - they make their money off scientists / engineers. Labor will be replaced with automation.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Ah yes, the Law of Unintended Consequences.

(aka the "what the heck have I done" realization)

 

xkcd is a science comic (or once was) why are you reading it?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

This forum is so anti-science (not really pointed at you ronwagn) it's sick.

Yet you continue to read this forum.  🤔

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

xkcd is a science comic (or once was) why are you reading it?

You might be surprised at the wide variety of stuff I read.  It's Mainstream Media and TV that I generally avoid.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

NaCl has essentially no buffering capacity.

Now you're pretending to be a chemist? Found a site dumbed down enough and as an added bonus since you're pretending to understand food biochemistry, it addresses both

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introductory-chemistry/s16-07-buffers.html

[specinho + 440]

On 4/24/2019 at 9:38 PM, esgeo said:

I know y'all hate political correctness, but the verdict is still out on scientific correctness from my experience here. Anyhow, I thought you all should know that permafrost does not "melt" as it degrades, rather it "thaws" (see article below). I doubt this knowledge has much effect on your enjoyment of reveling in outrage on the subject, but thought you may appreciate being better informed of the physics of what is actually happening...

Eerrr..... pardon me......... it must have taken you and colleagues years to complie and differentiate that two terms + emphasizing the importance of using the right term.......... thank you for the hard work....... and........... well done.........

Not trying to dowse your enthusiasm in terminological scientific research and writing up but....... sometimes........ it might be just that people have different focus on what's important and how they communicate........ for example:

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by specinho

[specinho + 440]

10 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

NaCl has essentially no buffering capacity.

48 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Now you're pretending to be a chemist? Found a site dumbed down enough and as an added bonus since you're pretending to understand food biochemistry, it addresses both

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introductory-chemistry/s16-07-buffers.html

May be Enthalpic is right........  NaCl is indeed not a buffer but a salt ......... The saltiness is measured by part per thousand........

On the other hand......... pH is measured by pH meter............. it depends on the mineral contents in the sea.... According to the internet the average pH of the sea is 8.1........ Therefore....... when carbon dioxide dissolves into water especially in colder zones the equation could be this:

2 H₂O + 2 CO₂   --->  2 H₂CO₃     ---->  2 H⁺  +  2 HCO₃^-

^{It's acidic. Hence...... it does have the possibility to change the pH value of the sea......... probably in hundred years of course........}

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by specinho

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

May be Enthalpic is right........  NaCl is indeed not a buffer but a salt ......... The saltiness is measured by part per thousand........

On the other hand......... pH is measured by pH meter............. it depends on the mineral contents in the sea.... According to the internet the average pH of the sea is 8.1........ Therefore....... when carbon dioxide dissolves into water especially in colder zones the equation could be this:

2 H₂O + 2 CO₂   --->  2 H₂CO₃     ---->  2 H⁺  +  2 HCO₃^-

^{It's acidic. Hence...... it does have the possibility to change the pH value of the sea......... probably in hundred years of course........}

 

Dude, click on the link and edumacate yourself before you embarrass yourself further

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

31 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Dude, click on the link and edumacate yourself before you embarrass yourself further

Read your own link!  I assure you I am correct on this matter.

"

Test Yourself

Which combinations of compounds can make a buffer solution?

1. NaHCO₃ and NaCl
2. H₃PO₄ and NaH₂PO₄
3. NH₃ and (NH₄)₃PO₄
4. NaOH and NaCl

Answers

1. no
2. yes
3. yes
4. no "

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yet you continue to read this forum.  🤔

It's entertaining.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 4/25/2019 at 10:43 AM, Marina Schwarz said:

You mean the scientists of a more sceptical bent are by definition shills for Big Oil? Um, okay. I haven't really heard any shouting from the fossil fuel camp, they're more the quiet type, I'd say, but I see shouting about the climate makes people vandalise stuff and glue themselves to stuff and I'm not sure how this helps. For me, it's extremely offputting and I doubt I'm the only one.

Woman Glues Her Breasts To The Ground In Protest Against Climate Change

Possibly siblings / separated at birth?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

12 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You might be surprised at the wide variety of stuff I read.  It's Mainstream Media and TV that I generally avoid.

If you like xkcd check out Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - it's great.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Read your own link!  I assure you I am correct on this matter.

"

Test Yourself

Which combinations of compounds can make a buffer solution?

1. NaHCO₃ and NaCl
2. H₃PO₄ and NaH₂PO₄
3. NH₃ and (NH₄)₃PO₄
4. NaOH and NaCl

Answers

1. no
2. yes
3. yes
4. no "

 

Dude, weak acid/base versus strong acid/base? Whoops try again, or don't since you only pretend to be a scientist on internet forums. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

16 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Dude, weak acid/base versus strong acid/base? Whoops try again, or don't since you only pretend to be a scientist on internet forums. 

Dude do your homework.

You need a weak acid and its conjugate base.  NaCl is not a buffer.

I can spoon feed this to you but you will just look more foolish than if you look it up yourself.

Edited April 29, 2019 by Enthalpic