Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Uranium is one of the world’s most abundant metals and can provide fuel for the world’s commercial nuclear plants for generations to come.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2010 jointly produced a report on uranium resources: "Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand." It says that uranium resources are adequate to meet nuclear energy needs for at least the next 100 years at present consumption levels. More efficient fast reactors could extend that period to more than 2,500 years.
➥ How long will the world's uranium supplies last? - Scientific American

A more complete analysis ➥ Uranium Supplies: Supply of Uranium - World Nuclear Association

'Current consumption levels' for nuclear power are about 15% of the total energy used. If we were to go to full nuclear, at current technology, a 100 year reserve would last about 20 years. At 50/50 nuclear/renewables, the current technology would give us 40 years. Even with the development and adoption of (this mysterious, miraculous ) new technology, full use of nuclear would give us, if we trust the 2500+ number, about 400 years (2500 divided by 6 = 417). A simplification, but the point should be obvious...

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

A simple analogy does not need to be plagarised. I thought it up myself.


Another example of binary thinking. Humans must consume no energy otherwise they will consume all of it. I could also mention carbonate rocks, so I will.

Alarmist propaganda or wishful thinking. Both the Permian extinction and the Cretaceous extinction have strong evidence to suggest asteroid collisions were the primary cause. There have been a few other mass extinction events during the history of life on Earth, too, and the jury is out on whether these may have been cold or heat related.


Finally, I don't know why you keep trying to say there has been no new technology since 1941/1960 or whatever. In the world of literature, it is said that there are only 7 basic plots. Yet these 7 basic plots have been fleshed out within miliions upon millions of printed (and cinematic) stories and form a cornerstone of what defines human society.

However on Earth you arrived at this statement


'm not so sure what you mean by 'excess energy collected'. Maybe Adoxograph can chime in here to help me out, but it seems that reduced hydrocarbon formations you speak of are not excess energy stores, but a (by) product of earth systems reaching near-equilibrium. For example, prior to 2-2.5 billion years ago, atmospheric CO2 level was roughly 30 percent, while atmospheric oxygen was practically non-existent. With the evolution of photosynthesis, CO2 levels very gradually decreased, O2 level increased, first in the sea (resulting in almost all the iron we use today), and then in the atmosphere. The eventual sequestering of almost all the CO2 resulted in (probably several) global ice ages on a scale almost unimaginable , making the tiny (globally speaking) 10,000 year ice ages of the last few million years look like frost on your windshield on a late spring cold snap in comparison. This is a rather important point in the discussion; it is not a coincidence, in my opinion, that the huge, protracted climatic fluctuations of the distant past have become less extreme and protracted, in a loose correlation with the increasing biodiversity of Earth's life. It appears that Lovelock's much-maligned, misunderstood and misappropriated Gaia hypotheses has a bit more than a grain of truth to it...


being an example of 'binary thinking' is beyond me, but I'm a little simple-minded. Nor do I see where there is any mention of energy usage at all. And of course the carbonatee rocks you don't speak of are what the 'excess carbon' were (mostly) sequestered into. Much like (if I'm inferring correctly) the initial free O2 in the ocean was 'sequestered' into ferric oxide, thereby permitting the automobile and most other industries. And not incidentally all multicellular life as we know it today.



A classic example of either/or thinking. Either an asteroid caused the KT and Permian events or seismically released gases/particulates did.


The reasonably current science, which Walter Alvarez (the co-founder of the impact theory) is fully on board with, seems to indicate that both the impact and the Deccan Traps are responsible for the KT extinction, with perhaps a somewhat greater responsibility being placed on the impact.


The Permian events' cause, though at 185 million years previous to the KT is understandably commensurately harder to pin down, appears to be primarily due to seismically released gases/particulates emitted from the Siberian traps. Though it too has an 'impact caused crowd', the lack of an appropriate crater is something of a stumbling block.


Nevertheless the science is clear that changes in atmospheric compostion have a very large impact on the evolutionary trajectory of all life forms on this planet, and the speed with which these changes happen appears to be directly correlated with the size and scope of these environmental and evolutionary changes.

If memory serves, I never said 'there has been no new technology since' whenever. In the original post , I believe I said no 'really new technology' and in subsequent posts refined that into 'revolutionary new technology'.

The ultimate point is of course, that technology doesn't work to reduce energy usage, but to increase it.


This graph





Combined with this one






might serve to illustrate the point. Oversimplifying in the extreme, it is no coincidence that the population explosion from 1955 on was brought on by technology, courtesy of a 300 million year old energy source, the Haber-Bosch process, and unregulated, unthoughtful and greedy policy decisions.


Thence we were delivered the 'Green Revolution'. A solution to a problem that didn't exist, but sold a lot of fertilizer, seed and tractors. The problem was never availability of food, but the distribution of it (one that is still with us).


And that technology-driven green revolution also enabled a single species to reach a population density completely out of proportion to those species concurrent with it, at least if one is going by the the history of life on Earth for the last 400 or so million years.


Add to that population the consumption philosophy of 'newest is best, more is better and I don't have to take responsibility for my actions', I can better understand the fairy dust hopes for a technological savior....

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile:
Forbes Welcome

"Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%. This pales in comparison to profit margins in just about every other industry.



Citizens United gave people who wish to express their political points of view through an organized legal entity a voice, whether they are asses or not (and they sometimes are). But that, my friend, is the essence of the First Amendment and a free society. Becoming happy and comfortable with it requires tolerance for other points of view and the types of people who expound them, along with some resilience to being easily offended. Silencing what any of us happen to think are disagreeable views is not the answer, and human civilization has many past & present ugly examples you are free to ponder.

Well the obvious answer to these 'paltry' profits, it they weren't happy with them, would be for them to go into a new business, or perhaps retire. Somehow I don't see any of the majors packing it in anytime soon..

People in the United States already have an 'organized legal entity' through which to express their voice. It's called the Constitution, in which are laid out the provisions for electing officials who are (supposedly) responsible for representing their constituents.


I suppose you think the repeal of Glass-Stegal, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, NAFTA and the TPP are all good things, too. As in for the Republic. We might as well legalize yelling fire in the theatre while we're at it...
(Yeah I'm being a little silly)

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Why is natural gas a fossil fuel on Earth but not on Titan or Europa or several other solar system bodies?

Because the vast majority (all?) of it that we recover from underground reservoirs is produced from unoxidized fossil algae. Where methane comes from elsewhere is irrelevant.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Originally Posted by Exile:

Forbes Welcome

"Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%. This pales in comparison to profit margins in just about every other industry."

Well the obvious answer to these 'paltry' profits, it they weren't happy with them, would be for them to go into a new business, or perhaps retire. Somehow I don't see any of the majors packing it in anytime soon..

Didn't say nor mean to suggest that oil industry profits are "paltry," only that they are highly cyclical and, on average, are right in line or even less (according to Forbes) with other major U.S. industries. My comments and link were in response to L-E's suggesting the widely reported but false meme that oil co. profits are excessive, or the frequent attempts to subject these cos. to a "windfall profits tax" at times when the price of oil and therefore profits are high. This only hurts consumers who will bear the cost of the added tax, along with the millions of shareholders who own these cos. and are relying on them maintaining their value in their retirement accounts. It's easy to hate oil cos. and follow along with the popular rhetoric, but having that attitude will do nothing to help find solutions for alleged problems with MMGW, or to address the diminishing resource concerns you have expressed.

Citizens United gave people who wish to express their political points of view through an organized legal entity a voice, whether they are asses or not (and they sometimes are). But that, my friend, is the essence of the First Amendment and a free society. Becoming happy and comfortable with it requires tolerance for other points of view and the types of people who expound them, along with some resilience to being easily offended. Silencing what any of us happen to think are disagreeable views is not the answer, and human civilization has many past & present ugly examples you are free to ponder.

People in the United States already have an 'organized legal entity' through which to express their voice. It's called the Constitution, in which are laid out the provisions for electing officials who are (supposedly) responsible for representing their constituents.

So should we take this statement to mean that restricting free speech rights of citizens are okay since their voices are adequately addressed by their elected representatives? That pretty much turns the idea of a constitutional republic on its head, does it not?

To be clear, the U.S. Constitution does not confer any positive right to free speech, but instead serves as a barrier to how far the state & federal govts. can go in restricting it. When it comes to restrictions on political campaigns, it is a balancing act btwn. the corrupting influences of the huge amounts of monies spent on campaigns, and the most important free speech right protected under the 1st Amend., namely the right of citizens to engage in political speech (and not leave it in the oh-so-capable hands of their elected reps.).

Citizens United challenged a decision by the Federal Election Commission to restrict the ability of nonprofit corps. under 501(c)(4) to engage in certain types of political activity (in that case airing a video critical of H. Clinton) under the McCain-Feingold Act. In ruling 5-4 that the restriction and the relevant portion of McCain-Feingold violated the 1st Amend., the Court essentially came down in favor of more speech rather than less to address the acknowledged harms that can accrue from the influence of disproportionate money in political campaigns. What is not widely reported in the MSM and liberal outlets, however, is that the decision applied equally to for-profits, labor unions, and other assocs. -- all without regard to political orientation. It also did nothing to the restrictions already in place on contributions to unions and corps. who contribute directly to candidates and campaigns, restrictions that remain illegal under federal law. It was only about the right of citizens to organize themselves into corp., union, and other entities so as to more effectively engage in political advocacy, regardless of political persuasion. Oh, and btw, many of the same conservative justices in the majority also routinely join their liberal brethren in favor of less restrictive free speech rights, incl. such famously unpopular cases as allowing religious zealots to disrupt military funerals, or allowing neo-Nazi's to march in Skokie, IL -- home to a large number of Jewish holocaust survivors. Balancing the harms arising from money in politics with the constitutional danger of restricting political speech is a tough balancing of competing interests that U.S. courts and policymakers have to wrestle with. It's been disappointing to watch the MSM, the Dem party, and the president himself turn it into such a partisan issue with false & misleading rhetoric, based in part on the largely irrelevant fact that the particular facts of the case itself happened to involve political speech attacking a liberal candidate on the Democratic ticket. By design, the U.S. Constitution does not make such distinctions based on politics.

I suppose you think the repeal of Glass-Stegal, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, NAFTA and the TPP are all good things, too. As in for the Republic. We might as well legalize yelling fire in the theatre while we're at it...
(Yeah I'm being a little silly)

Am not schooled up enough on these particular statutes to comment, but I am confident the issues presented are just a bit more complicated than your analogy would suggest!

[fryewe]

For example: A total of ~1x10^11t of oil was produced since George Bissell and Edwin L. Drake discovered in the 1850s how to drill an oil well and produce oil on an industrial scale. All oil used since then contained ~4.187x10^21J of energy.

Since the specific heat of water is about 4.186 J/gram C, all that energy could raise the temperature of 10 to the 21st grams of water by only one degree C, if all that energy were absorbed by the water in the world's oceans uniformly (which of course would take a very, very long time).

But since the mass of the world's ocean water is about 1.4x10 to the 24th grams, one could expect a temperature rise of only about 0.003 degrees C if all the energy were distributed uniformly in the ocean.

Of course engines and turbines and boilers convert heat energy into other forms, and waste heat is on average 80 percent of the energy burned, so the effect would be lower. Locally, temporary increases in temperature are of course higher, but conduction, convection and radiation will distribute heat more widely in the longer term.

So, I think we're going to be okay in the long term. Big numbers, but not a great deal of impact.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Didn't say nor mean to suggest that oil industry profits are "paltry," only that they are highly cyclical and, on average, are right in line or even less (according to Forbes) with other major U.S. industries. My comments and link were in response to L-E's suggesting the widely reported but false meme that oil co. profits are excessive, or the frequent attempts to subject these cos. to a "windfall profits tax" at times when the price of oil and therefore profits are high.

Wow.

1. Forbes did not say that, the head honcho of an oil industry lobby group (who wrote that op-ed in Forbes) said that, and I already linked you to evidence that this claim is not accurate.
2. I never once said or suggested that "oil co. profits are excessive" or that oil should be subject to a "windfall profits tax" at times when the price of oil and therefore profits are high." This is what I said: it makes sense to introduce new tools such as carbon pricing at a time when oil and gas prices are so low, because a small bump-up at this point is obviously more affordable than when the consumer prices are high. Duh.
   

Of course you lay this out after opining

Well, scientific truth is a rather unrealistic goal I must say. Maybe I'm just hoping for ruling out some of the more obvious bulls**t. With that more humble goal in mind, we might be making some progress.

So you claim you don't want ********, but you'll spend pages defending crap articles from crap sites (if they're anti-AGW), and feel comfortable misrepresenting me and others. Basically, you don't want less ********, just a specific flavour of it.

Citizens United makes it possible for any individual or group to spend as much money as they want to get their viewpoint or message across, without any constraint from election spending laws, and without accountability. A simple shell game with some inscrutable nonprofit fronts makes the funders untraceable for all intents and purposes. Your claim that this is somehow making more free speech is hypocritical in light of your recent claim that unions are no longer necessary. (which is why new US factory jobs pay crap and have few benefits). Again, you don't seem to want free speech, you just want freedom for your preferred speech. Nice.

Of course this might just be your own version of trolling. If so, you should probably start aiming now for brevity and pungency, to keep advancing your game.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The distinction you're missing or choosing not to recognize is that while terrorism, violent crime, and cancer can, will, and has killed us, nobody has died from MMGW and is unlikely to.

Finding, extracting, refining and transporting fossil fuel has killed quite a few. As we speak, a river in Saskatchewan is coping with an oil spill from a pipeline. Air pollution from vehicles kills. God forbid we make any dents in those...

Since you don't acknowledge AGW, of course you won't acknowledge the extinctions (oops sorry, not humans, so you won't care), crop failures, greater weather extremes, droughts, loss of habitable land that temperature increase will bring. So I won't mention them.

And you blame conservatives, the religious right, and Heartland for distorting the message and encouraging all the doubt?

I blame you for pretending to be scientific when in fact you're just seeking validation for a political point of view.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Future dangers to humans from MMGW may or may not be realized, but the only thing apt about its comparison to terrorism is yet another useful way of scaring people into believing the most dire MMGW predictions are true. The distinction you're missing or choosing not to recognize is that while terrorism, violent crime, and cancer can, will, and has killed us, nobody has died from MMGW and is unlikely to. Based on where the science seems to be at now anyway. There is evidence but seemingly no strong consensus on a correlation with increased storms, droughts, and crop failures, sea level rise will occur (if at all) gradually, and the most likely predictions on warming coming out of officialdom is 2°C by the end of the century. In the meantime, how many deaths will humans continue to suffer from terrorism, violent crime, and cancer now and in the foreseeable future?? If, like you, public officials believe that MMGW should also be a high priority, they are just blowing their own credibility comparing its future potential harm to these more immediate and also quite terrifying ways to die.

And you blame conservatives, the religious right, and Heartland for distorting the message and encouraging all the doubt?

Speaks for itself. No analysis needed.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1210...wide-terrorism

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Speaks for itself. No analysis needed.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1210...wide-terrorism

...And also politely eases or suspends it's killing spree at borders. Amazing.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Speaks for itself. No analysis needed.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1210...wide-terrorism

Heh. Color me surprised. Jack posts a link and suggests no analysis is needed...and provides none.

From his link...

This report estimates that climate change causes 400,000 deaths on average each year today, mainly due to hunger and communicable diseases that affect above all children in developing countries. Our present carbon-intensive energy system and related activities cause an estimated 4.5 million deaths each year linked to air pollution, hazardous occupations and cancer.

What a crock. The reason no analysis is needed is because the report is an agenda driven POS.

[StuM]

> Our present carbon-intensive energy system and related activities cause an estimated 4.5 million deaths each year linked to air pollution, hazardous occupations and cancer.

So I went back to the original report that the article is based on.
What a load of horse-pucky!

Of that 4.5 million deaths, 3.1 million are from "indoor smoke"

i.e the use of wood/dung or whatever for cooking and heating fires inside dwellings in third world countries. Just imagine how much that could be reduced if they were allowed access to affordable, clean energy.

A further 1.4 million is categorized from a more general "air pollution". Yet I guarantee that today's cities are a lot less polluted that they were even in my childhood - you don't see the smog and soot that was prevalent then.

I can't be bother with critiquing the rest of it, but its all in the same vein.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Since the specific heat of water is about 4.186 J/gram C, all that energy could raise the temperature of 10 to the 21st grams of water by only one degree C, if all that energy were absorbed by the water in the world's oceans uniformly (which of course would take a very, very long time).

But since the mass of the world's ocean water is about 1.4x10 to the 24th grams, one could expect a temperature rise of only about 0.003 degrees C if all the energy were distributed uniformly in the ocean.

Of course engines and turbines and boilers convert heat energy into other forms, and waste heat is on average 80 percent of the energy burned, so the effect would be lower. Locally, temporary increases in temperature are of course higher, but conduction, convection and radiation will distribute heat more widely in the longer term.

So, I think we're going to be okay in the long term. Big numbers, but not a great deal of impact.

Too funny!

Firstly not all oil is burned. There is a thing called petrochemistry, you know the guys who make things out of oil like plastics, cosmetics, fertiliser etc. which I find everywhere when sailing (Damn plastic bottles!)

Secondly there is a secondary complex effect of CO_2 in the atmosphere after the oil is "combusted" which is increasing the energy stored up there and a tertiary even more complex process increasing the water vapour in the atmosphere in relation to the secondary CO_2, which is trapping even more energy in the atmosphere.

Thirdly, as we are talking atmosphere you have to use the C_p (specific heat) of water (gas), which is 1.865 J/(g K) or even better the C_p of air, which is with 1.007 J/(g K) much lower depending on pressure. That's the reason a water cooled engine design is more efficient in cooling the engine than a air cooled engine cooling system.

But how is all of that relevant? Actually it is not. It comes down to one thing. Right now the natural carbon sinks can not cope with the carbon (whatever the source of the carbon is) increasing CO_2 content in the air-mixture. Don't forget we are still releasing carbon into the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow.

Sometimes, especially when I get stuck, I wish that science would be as easy and clear cut as politicians want you to believe it is.

Nice try, though

[adoxograph]

PS: I completely forgot. If all of the oil's energy would have been converted to "heat" the temperature of atmosphere would have increased by 1.237K

5.1441x10^21g/(4.187x10^21J/1.007J(gK)) = 1.237K

This is of course a complete meaningless back of a napkin calculation - similar to the increase in water temperature you provided, the one I did not even bother to check.

This is fun!

Ok now to climate change deaths. I do not agree with the article but I want to point out that dramatic climate change always leads to huge migration, large number of deaths and even the extinction of complete species (usually faster than new species appear through evolution, which on the other hand always is filling all niches given enough time). And I am not talking just humans!

Kind of a reset button for the planet.

Remember "the successive waves of Eurasian nomadic movement throughout history have had their origins in climatic cycles, which have expanded or contracted pastureland in Central Asia, especially Mongolia and the Altai. People were displaced from their home ground by other tribes trying to find land that could be grazed by essential flocks, each group pushing the next further to the south and west, into the highlands of Anatolia, the Pannonian Plain, into Mesopotamia or southwards, into the rich pastures of China. Bogumil Terminski uses the term "migratory domino effect" to describe this process in the context of Sea People invasion." and so on...

[transmitterdan]

I agree the computation is interesting and meaningless. The source of heat that drives our climate is the Sun. The heat from burning fuel would be lost to space without the radiant heat from the Sun. Without greenhouse gasses the planet would be extremely cold at night and unbearably hot during the day. So greenhouse gasses are an essential part of the planetary temperature regulation system. Scientists "think" that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will result in a net increase in global temperatures. They can model this effect pretty well. But they don't "know" exactly how much the temperature will increase nor the exact effect that increase will have. Most scientists "think" the result will be "bad". But in the end an honest scientist will say they simply are not 100% sure. The question for each of us is how sure do they have to be before we accept significant change to our lifestyles in the pursuit of "less bad"..

It seems there is a continuum of "bad" people will accept and likewise a continuum of "lifestyle change" they are willing to accept. As in all things related to human nature there is no way we will all agree on the level of risk or the amount of change we must endure. The "more change is needed crowd" can't convince the "little change is needed" crowd by engaging in rhetoric that is devoid of common sense.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

PS: I completely forgot. If all of the oil's energy would have been converted to "heat" the temperature of atmosphere would have increased by 1.237K

5.1441x10^21g/(4.187x10^21J/1.007J(gK)) = 1.237K

But all of the oil isn't converted to heat energy, as much of it is used in plastics and ....

This is of course a complete meaningless back of a napkin calculation - similar to the increase in water temperature you provided, the one I did not even bother to check.

Not meaningless, but simply not a complete or even partially complete model of the physical world, and exactly like the one I did with respect to water temp rise. But both show something important...they are simple calculations that define worst case boundary conditions...one for atmosphere temperature rise, the other for water temperature rise due to the heat energy from fossil fuel burning, which your prior post seemed to indicate was important enough to recite the mass mined and energy converted.

Each shows that the energy released in burning fossil fuels is a trivial factor in rising air temps or thermal expansion of the oceans causing rising sea levels.

This is fun! :big grin:

I know...and dangerous. Didn't want you to be bored.

Public math is hard, and if one makes a mistake, could subject one to endless ridicule. I didn't check your calculations either.

Glad you're still with us here.

[SV THIRD DAY]

For those in the Calculation Mode.
Calculate the following:

1. The Amount of CO2 released from the burning of every drop of Oil ever pulled from the ground.

2. Then what percentage of CO2 in the Atmosphere will that be.

3. As an extra credit bonus question, what temperature increase will that said amount of CO2 increase result in.

Bingo...
Isn't Science Grand.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

For those in the Calculation Mode.
Calculate the following:

1. The Amount of CO2 released from the burning of every drop of Oil ever pulled from the ground.

2. Then what percentage of CO2 in the Atmosphere will that be.

3. As an extra credit bonus question, what temperature increase will that said amount of CO2 increase result in.

Bingo...
Isn't Science Grand.

Homework?

I thought Jack was the only one who was allowed to assign homework. And his was only reading, not Math!!!