Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dangerously Cold Record Low Temps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stripe
    replied


    Looks like Barbarian has been fooled again.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    I see that [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] is trying to be dishonest by pretending that there is such a thing as a "world" temperature record when almost all of the temperatures we have recorded are from the United States and western Europe.
    Well, let's take a look...



    Looks as though you were fooled again. And since much of the data is now by satellite, it really wouldn't be an issue. Indeed, if scientists were foolish enough to weight the United States more than the rest of the world, we'd actually get lower temperatures for much of the latter part of the 20th century.

    Leave a comment:


  • genuineoriginal
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    An event would either only wipe out a low percentage or the entire population. Getting something large enough, but limited enough to kill, say, 75 percent would be extremely improbable.

    The only way to kill a substantial number of people — relative to the population of the world — would be with tsunami.

    The waves would be significantly worse than from those seismically sourced, but there are limiting factors on how bad the effect would be. These things don't scale well. You can do more damage than the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, but you have to step the initial conditions up exponentially.

    Ironically, the energy involved in the quake was vastly greater than what would be involved with a strike.
    Yep.
    With the population distribution, it wouldn't be difficult to kill off all the people that live near the ocean.


    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Moreover, having the knowhow available would be next to useless in a situation where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. The remainder would be too preoccupied with survival to implement new tech.
    Yep.

    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    There wouldn't be darkness. The dust in the atmosphere would last little longer than a regular sandstorm. Physics doesn't stop because of the imagination of science fiction writers.

    Back to location issues, it seems like you place too much emphasis on the presumed "nuclear winter" scenario.

    Such things are almost certainly exaggerated.

    It would be one or the other: Either everyone would die, or life would go on pretty much as it does now. Global events are very difficult to survive.
    Diminished sunshine can last a lot longer than then initial darkness and catastrophes can have global effects that are survivable.

    What would happen if we had another year without a summer?

    Year Without a Summer


    The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death) because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F). This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.

    Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This eruption was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years (after the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines.

    In the spring and summer of 1816, a persistent "dry fog" was observed in parts of the eastern United States. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight, such that sunspots were visible to the naked eye. Neither wind nor rainfall dispersed the "fog". It has been characterized as a "stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil".

    You saw it too?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Show us the numbers.
    Show us your numbers.

    That seems crazy on the face of it.
    That's nice.

    However, your incredulity isn't a very convincing counterargument.

    How would a 15km asteroid take out infrastructure all over the world?
    I never insisted that it would.

    The point was: If it was enough to wipe out more than half, it would go on to take out the other half. I also assumed that whatever amount the immediate aftereffects of the strike killed, it would also take out all their infrastructure.

    The Chicxulub asteroid would have produced a large tsunami, and would have been lethal over a large part of the continent.
    If indeed it actually happened — a very unlikely scenario — the waves would not have gotten much more than about 10km inland. The first decent slope would have all but ended things.

    You've been watching too many science fiction movies.

    The biggest factor would have been dust tossed up into the atmosphere, which would have persisted for a year or more. Even large volcanic eruptions can toss up enough material to cause drastic cooling.

    The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death)[1] because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F).[2] This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3]

    Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This eruption was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years (after the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines.

    [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
    I'm prepared to assume that this all happened as you assert. The simple answer to such a "global cooling" would be fossil fuels. Why on earth would you think anything else?

    Existing technology would be sufficient.
    Exactly.

    You've been misled about that.

    As you just learned, science fiction wonderings aren't convincing. Physics don't stop just because you have a vivid imagination.

    Just the entry of a asteroid 15km wide would release a huge amount of heat, over a very large area. A relatively small body entering the atmosphere over Sibera, likely around 50 to 200 meters wide, flattened forests over 2000km, and broke windows over a hundred miles away.
    Did you find me saying that it wouldn't?

    Once again, you refuse to respond to what I say, preferring instead to argue with what you wish I'd said.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Unlikely.

    An event would either only wipe out a low percentage or the entire population. Getting something large enough, but limited enough to kill, say, 75 percent would be extremely improbable.

    Moreover, having the knowhow available would be next to useless in a situation where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. The remainder would be too preoccupied with survival to implement new tech.

    There wouldn't be darkness. The dust in the atmosphere would last little longer than a regular sandstorm. Physics doesn't stop because of the imagination of science fiction writers.



    The only way to kill a substantial number of people — relative to the population of the world — would be with tsunami.

    The waves would be significantly worse than from those seismically sourced, but there are limiting factors on how bad the effect would be. These things don't scale well. You can do more damage than the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, but you have to step the initial conditions up exponentially.

    Ironically, the energy involved in the quake was vastly greater than what would be involved with a strike.

    Back to location issues, it seems like you place too much emphasis on the presumed "nuclear winter" scenario.

    Such things are almost certainly exaggerated.



    It would be one or the other: Either everyone would die, or life would go on pretty much as it does now. Global events are very difficult to survive.
    i may watch deep impact tonight - haven't seen it in a while and tea leoni

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Unlikely.

    An event would either only wipe out a low percentage or the entire population. Getting something large enough, but limited enough to kill, say, 75 percent would be extremely improbable.
    Show us the numbers. That seems crazy on the face of it.

    Moreover, having the knowhow available would be next to useless in a situation where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed.
    How would a 15km asteroid take out infrastructure all over the world? The Chicxulub asteroid would have produced a large tsunami, and would have been lethal over a large part of the continent. The biggest factor would have been dust tossed up into the atmosphere, which would have persisted for a year or more. Even large volcanic eruptions can toss up enough material to cause drastic cooling.

    The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer (also the Poverty Year and Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death)[1] because of severe climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F).[2] This resulted in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3]

    Evidence suggests that the anomaly was predominantly a volcanic winter event caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This eruption was the largest eruption in at least 1,300 years (after the extreme weather events of 535–536), and perhaps exacerbated by the 1814 eruption of Mayon in the Philippines.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

    The remainder would be too preoccupied with survival to implement new tech.
    Existing technology would be sufficient. Most people might die, but a hemisphere away, not so much.

    There wouldn't be darkness. The dust in the atmosphere would last little longer than a regular sandstorm.
    You've been misled about that. As you just learned, the effects of just one or possibly two large volcanic eruptions essentially affected an entire year. There would be a lot more micron-level ejecta from a large asteroid hit. Physics doesn't stop because of the imagination of science fiction writers.

    The only way to kill a substantial number of people — relative to the population of the world — would be with tsunami.
    No, that's wrong too. Just the entry of a asteroid 15km wide would release a huge amount of heat, over a very large area. A relatively small body entering the atmosphere over Sibera, likely around 50 to 200 meters wide, flattened forests over 2000km, and broke windows over a hundred miles away.

    If that had entered over Europe, there would likely have been millions of casualties.

    Ironically, the energy involved in the quake was vastly greater than what would be involved with a strike.
    Show us your numbers. That seems rather unlikely:

    A magnitude 5.0 earthquake is about 200 tons of TNT, magnitude 6.0 is 6,270 tons
    https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...arthquake3.htm

    The Tunguska hit in Siberia is estimated to have been about about 30 megatons of TNT. And that was only a tiny fraction of what a 15km object would be.

    Back to location issues, it seems like you place too much emphasis on the presumed "nuclear winter" scenario.
    Last time it happened, almost every land animal larger than a few kilograms, died.

    The researchers were even able to estimate what kind of asteroid must have impacted the Earth 65.5 million years ago to throw up such a consistent layer of debris around the entire planet. They estimated that the impactor must have been about 10 km in diameter, and release the energy equivalent of 100 trillion tons of TNT.

    When that asteroid struck the Earth 65.5 million years ago, it destroyed a region thousands of kilometers across, but also threw up a dust cloud that obscured sunlight for years. That blocked photosynthesis in plants – the base of the food chain – and eventually starved out the dinosaurs.

    https://www.universetoday.com/39801/k-t-boundary/

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    The impact of 15km asteroid would be devastating, although it probably wouldn't kill everyone. We'd lose a sizeable proportion of the world's people unless we had decades to prepare. But since geothermal heat would continue, and since the technology for using it is available, there would be many areas where it could be employed.
    Unlikely.

    An event would either only wipe out a low percentage or the entire population. Getting something large enough, but limited enough to kill, say, 75 percent would be extremely improbable.

    Moreover, having the knowhow available would be next to useless in a situation where much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. The remainder would be too preoccupied with survival to implement new tech.

    Fossil fuels would presumably still be available, and since the darkness would likely last for years, but not for decades, survivors could hang on.
    There wouldn't be darkness. The dust in the atmosphere would last little longer than a regular sandstorm. Physics doesn't stop because of the imagination of science fiction writers.

    And the location of the impact would matter.
    The only way to kill a substantial number of people — relative to the population of the world — would be with tsunami.

    The waves would be significantly worse than from those seismically sourced, but there are limiting factors on how bad the effect would be. These things don't scale well. You can do more damage than the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, but you have to step the initial conditions up exponentially.

    Ironically, the energy involved in the quake was vastly greater than what would be involved with a strike.

    Back to location issues, it seems like you place too much emphasis on the presumed "nuclear winter" scenario.

    Such things are almost certainly exaggerated.

    It would be a very different world afterwards, but one with human survivors, I think.
    It would be one or the other: Either everyone would die, or life would go on pretty much as it does now. Global events are very difficult to survive.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Any event that would deny people the sun would wipe everyone out.

    There's no point making contingencies for life after an extinction-level event.
    The impact of 15km asteroid would be devastating, although it probably wouldn't kill everyone. We'd lose a sizeable proportion of the world's people unless we had decades to prepare. But since geothermal heat would continue, and since the technology for using it is available, there would be many areas where it could be employed.

    Fossil fuels would presumably still be available, and since the darkness would likely last for years, but not for decades, survivors could hang on. And the location of the impact would matter. An ocean strike might cause more casualties initially, but all that water vapor going into the atmosphere would mean more rain to clear the atmosphere, and more of whatever infrared we'd get from the sun would be retained.

    It would be a very different world afterwards, but one with human survivors, I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Any event that would deny people the sun would wipe everyone out.

    There's no point making contingencies for life after an extinction-level event.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    That high of heat is only found in limited areas.
    In most locations you will need to drill down several miles to reach that high of a geothermal heat source.
    Yep. But efficiency requires a high temperature gradient. You could build huge Stirling engines to run on lower differences, but they are low torque devices, and don't work very well. Drilling several miles down is feasible. In a pinch, Yellowstone could become a huge energy farm. The park is essentially one large volcanic caldera. And the magma is very close to the surface, there.

    Leave a comment:


  • genuineoriginal
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Use heat to make steam to drive generators.
    That high of heat is only found in limited areas.
    In most locations you will need to drill down several miles to reach that high of a geothermal heat source.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    How do we use geothermal for photosynthesis to grow our plants?
    Use heat to make steam to drive generators.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    If it's the case that another such impact would cause an extended "winter," and would threaten the majority of plant life, then in order to survive, humanity would need to figure out pretty quickly how to generate enough electricity to run electric lighting (and probably heating) in order to be able to continue to grow enough crops to feed people, and after that to feed livestock for eating as well.
    We'd have to abandon livestock, except for a limited number for the time when the dust settled. Our limited resources would have to be focused on plant food, since only about 10% of the food in plants is recovered when you use it to feed an animal and use that for food.

    Right now we are Blessed with the sun shining down on us, and if ever that is interrupted for not even all that long, every plant on earth will soon die, and we will be soon starving, writ large.
    It's one reason that I suggest that resources are far better spent preparing for such a cataclysm, than on how to stabilize global climate change, even if it is real.
    It's an interesting problem. Probabilities matter. So the probability of severe consequences for global warming in the next century is close to 1.0, while the probability of a strike by a sufficiently large body to cause a global catastrophe capable of killing off mankind in the same period is about 0.000005.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

    But it's not quite that simple. It is very, very unlikely that runaway warming will kill all of us, while a 50km asteroid, might very well do that. And for that, you'd have to put a value on a few millions of people vs. the billions who would die if the Earth was hit by a large body, including the very real possibility that it would kill all of us.

    If we had to generate this much electricity, then how would we do it?
    We have the technology now, to use geothermal. But it would be too late to start even a few years before such a strike. And seeing as geothermal in most areas is hard to get to, that probably isn't the answer.

    And can we learn anything from this investigation that might help us now, that might even help us now to address global climate change now, if it is real?
    I figure that if we have enough time, technology can save us. I don't know how much time. Given the likelihood of a large body hitting the Earth anytime soon is very small (but we should be keeping an eye out for that, because we could possibly nudge it to miss the Earth if we started early enough)I'd say we should focus on the problem of warming.

    As you probably know, it won't affect every area equally. There will be winners and losers. The thing is, the losers will move into other areas. Last couple of times there were climate disruptions, it led to wars, disease and the collapse of empires.



    So what to do? Work on technology. There is no downside to using solar wherever feasible. One reason we are now an oil-exporting nation is that we are using less fossil energy to do the things we need. Iowa is now generating about 35% of its electrical energy from wind. Texas and Washington state are also using wind effectively.

    Part of the problem is that we don't know exactly where some major tipping points might be, such as turnover of methane. Methane is a more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and the Arctic lands release a lot of it. If they get warmer, they'll release it faster, which would feed on itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • genuineoriginal
    replied
    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    Now ... how much electricity are we going to need?

    It'd have to tie to the current annual crops needed per person, taking into account what people eat, plus what the animals that people eat eat.

    Estimate the quantity of light needed, and then back calculate the quantity of W needed to power all that light, given the most efficient light sources (I'm presuming LED).

    Knowing next to nothing about what these figures might be, it does however 'feel like' we'd need something like 10-1000 times as much electrical generation as we currently have, in order to generate all that light.
    Here is the closest mankind has come to what we have been talking about:

    Horticulture
    At Friðheimar we strive to grow the tastiest tomatoes we can, while respecting nature. Our tomatoes are cultivated all year round using the latest technology, in an environmentally-friendly way: green energy, pure water and organic pest controls combine to produce fresh, healthful tomatoes.

    Natural resources lend a hand
    The farm has abundant supplies of geothermal water, which provides heat to the greenhouses. The borehole is 200 m from the greenhouses and the water flows into them at about 95°C / 203°F. In order to maximise sunlight in the greenhouses, the glass panes are only 4 mm thick, so a huge amount of hot water is needed – about 100,000 tons per year! And the pure cold water used for irrigation is from the same source as the family’s own water supply. Since tomatoes are about 90% water, the quality of irrigation water is very important. Iceland has abundant resources of “green” electricity from hydro and geothermal power plants, providing the artificial lighting necessary to grow the crops all year round at such a northerly latitude. And photosynthesis is enhanced by using carbon dioxide produced from natural geothermal steam.

    Modern technology
    Each greenhouse is equipped with a climate-control computer system for temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide and lighting. The computer is connected with a fertiliser mixer, which waters the crop according to a programmed system. On the roof a weather observation unit provides data on wind speed and direction, temperature and light. When the sun comes out, and natural light reaches a certain level, the lights are automatically switched off – and come on again when the light level falls. All the systems are linked into a mainframe computer connected to the internet – so Knútur and Helena can monitor and adjust the systems at Friðheimar, wherever they are in the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Idolater
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    geothermal to generate electricity to power grow lights
    Now ... how much electricity are we going to need?

    It'd have to tie to the current annual crops needed per person, taking into account what people eat, plus what the animals that people eat eat.

    Estimate the quantity of light needed, and then back calculate the quantity of W needed to power all that light, given the most efficient light sources (I'm presuming LED).

    Knowing next to nothing about what these figures might be, it does however 'feel like' we'd need something like 10-1000 times as much electrical generation as we currently have, in order to generate all that light.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X