I doubt there would be much of a lasting effect on the climate. The serious effects would all be over pretty quickly — although the memories would last a lifetime. A bit of dirt in the sky would be the least of our worries.
Dangerously Cold Record Low Temps
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
That experiment has been done. The Chicxulub event killed off every land animal more massive than a kilogram, and greatly affected sea life. Presumably, it was the "dirt in the sky" that caused photosynthesis to fail, starving herbivores and their predators.
The asteroid was between 10 and 50 miles in diameter.
genuineoriginal
New member
That was probably one of the meteorites that caused the global flood during the time of Noah.
Nope.
The flood caused the space rocks. But we've had that discussion.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
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.
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. If we had to generate this much electricity, then how would we do it? 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?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
we'd have to go underground anyways, might as well use geothermal
and the global population would be almost wholly reduced
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
My first thought was that we'd increase our nuclear output by a factor of 10 or 100, maybe 1000. I'm aware of geothermal being used for cooling (in the summer) and warming (in the winter), how do you make electricity from geothermal?
That'd be why it's worth working now to prepare for an impact event, to try to avoid this.
genuineoriginal
New member
How do we use geothermal for photosynthesis to grow our plants?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
any temperature differental can be harnessed to spin a wheel
erickson and stirling were working on it back in the early 1800s
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
geothermal to generate electricity to power grow lights
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
oh sure, if you want to go modern
if we're living in caves, i'd prefer old school tech - easier to keep running
genuineoriginal
New member
A thermoelectric generator has no moving parts.oh sure, if you want to go modern
if we're living in caves, i'd prefer old school tech - easier to keep running
A heat engine has moving parts that can wear out and requires a cold sink which will heat up during use, becoming less effective over a short amount of time.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Geothermal works as a cold sink; problem solved?
genuineoriginal
New member
As the heat engine operates, heat from the heat source is transferred into the cold sink, raising the temperature of the cold sink, which reduces the effectiveness of the heat engine over time.
genuineoriginal
New member
Okay, that could work.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
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.
genuineoriginal
New member
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. |
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.
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.
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.
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.