A Plan: Climate Change

[AdD 1]

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=921

Quote

Life as we know it will end by 2025.

Find that improbable?

Consider this then. The Arctic is heating up four times faster than the rest of the planet and this thawing has already begun. The consequences are ominous. The thawing of the Arctic will release enormous quantities of methane.

The Siberian bog has already started giving off small amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Many natural occurrences are self-regulating, but there is no self-regulation in global warming and more specifically, the Arctic warming. This is a run-away event; a kind of global domino effect.

Significant methane release in the Arctic will start impacting the climate within the next 10 years and the complete flip to a methane atmosphere will take an additional 5 years. Since, methane has 20 times the global warming effect as CO2, the release of methane from the Arctic will then trigger a release of methane from the ocean floor as the oceans warm. This second wave of methane release double-insures no plant or animal will survive. Plant and animal species are inter-dependent on each other. Lower level, plant and animal species die off first and this will result in the death of the higher level species.

2025 is neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic prediction but it is the mid-point of my range of years from 2020 to 2030. Predicting the future is difficult because we do not know the exact release rates of methane from the Arctic bogs and tundra.

Quote

The Solution
The Solution is to stop the Arctic thaw by reducing the winds and the resultant heat transfer by the winds.

Trees will block the wind but we do not have time to plant more trees and wait for them to grow. The only, feasible, solution to reduce wind speed is to build and install a massive number of wind turbines to get wind speeds down to pre-industrial levels.

The laws of thermodynamics do apply. A wind turbine takes energy from the wind therefore wind speed must be reduced by that amount of energy.

Obviously, wind turbines were not designed to slow the wind. They were designed to extract energy from the wind, but in this scenario, their primary mission is to slow the wind and stop the Arctic thaw. Their secondary mission is to provide us with energy so we can stop burning fossil fuels and start reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Co-incidentally, wind turbines are also today’s best financial solution to generate electricity and eliminate the burning of fossil fuels.

5 to 20 million large wind turbines are needed to stop the Arctic thaw.

My estimate is that 5 to 20 million large wind turbines would lower the wind speeds to pre-industrial levels and get the Arctic freezing again. That is a lot of wind turbines. To put it in perspective. Today, 10 million large wind turbines would supply mans’ energy needs. 5 to 20 million large wind turbines is a fairly wide prediction. That is because I lack the data and knowledge to zero in on a more exact number.

If we installed a wall of wind turbines, four deep, across Canada (7,000 km) with a 40 meter spacing, it would require 180,000 wind turbines. This is a good visualization but these 180,000 wind turbines could probably be more strategically placed. There is a lack of trees on the plains of North America and on the rocky coast of Newfoundland and Labrador where the trees are few, stunted and windswept. These are windy places and that is where the wind turbines would best be situated.

We can't keep ignoring the Arctic thaw methane feedback loop. This solution sounds a little wacky to me but hey, something has to happen.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[billvon 3,120]

OK, that's a bit silly. Turbines slow down winds near the surface. Most of the heat transfer in the atmosphere happens a lot higher than that.

And life as we know it won't end. It will just change, as it has in the past. A good argument against further emissions of CO2 is that we may well not like what it changes to. For example, if the sort of life favored in the new climate we create is fungus, vermin, locusts, mosquitos etc. then we're going to be in a world of hurt, because disease and starvation will become a lot more commonplace.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

OK, that's a bit silly. Turbines slow down winds near the surface. Most of the heat transfer in the atmosphere happens a lot higher than that.

And life as we know it won't end. It will just change, as it has in the past. A good argument against further emissions of CO2 is that we may well not like what it changes to. For example, if the sort of life favored in the new climate we create is fungus, vermin, locusts, mosquitos etc. then we're going to be in a world of hurt, because disease and starvation will become a lot more commonplace.

Agreed, but wind turbines are still a good idea, and at least don't create more CO2.

illegible usually

[billvon 3,120]

>Agreed, but wind turbines are still a good idea, and at least don't
>create more CO2.

Yeah, they're a good source of power, but as devices to ameliorate climate change I think they leave something to be desired.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

>Agreed, but wind turbines are still a good idea, and at least don't
>create more CO2.

Yeah, they're a good source of power, but as devices to ameliorate climate change I think they leave something to be desired.

Damn bill, you've gotta stop using words I have to look up.

[AdD 1]

Quote

And life as we know it won't end. It will just change, as it has in the past. A good argument against further emissions of CO2 is that we may well not like what it changes to.

This article has little to do with CO2 emissions. The problem is the enormous quantities of methane gas trapped in the frozen Arctic tundra. Recent surveys of Canada's north show massive erosion and melting of the tundra. An episode of The Nature of Things I saw this year featured a scientific voyage through the Northwest passage, with very little ice visible. The tundra is thawing and eroding into the sea at the coast. This thawing will inevitably release methane gas, which has 20 times the atmospheric warming potential of CO2. There is no natural process which will counter this release other than cooling as a result of ocean current disruption, which has triggered ice ages in the past.
I agree that the turbines sound ridiculous, and I don't know enough about heat transfer through wind to make any comments on this, but the larger and undeniable problem is the vicious cycle of methane release.

[billvon 3,120]

>This article has little to do with CO2 emissions. The problem is the
> enormous quantities of methane gas trapped in the frozen Arctic
> tundra.

Yes, and stored in clathrates under the sea. The CO2 is the trigger that provides the small amount of heating that starts the process.

>This thawing will inevitably release methane gas, which has 20
>times the atmospheric warming potential of CO2.

Right, but we release about 6 gigatons of CO2 (that's 6,000,000,000 tons) into the atmosphere every year. That means we'd have to cause the release of 300 megatons of methane every year to double our own effect. I'm not saying it's not a factor, but the 20 to 1 thing has to be applied to the amounts of both being released.

Also note that there is currently a flux of methane in the atmosphere already; it's a gas that is produced regularly by animals and by decomposition, and is decomposed by photodissociation. Knowing whether we overload that cycle (as we've done for CO2 already) would be critical.

[rehmwa 2]

I'm trying every day to reduce my personal methane output. But sometimes, it just slips.....usually around 7500 feet.

Oh look, cows....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The problem is the enormous quantities of methane gas trapped in the frozen Arctic tundra.

There are large pockets of oil in the Santa Barbara channel. One of the things that happens is that there are seeps of these hydrocarbons. Among these naturally occurring seepages are methane. Part of the UCSB campus is the Coal Oil Point. Just off-shore of the campus (from personal experience I'm talking within putrid smelling distance of the campus) is a natural seep field.

This is a natural seep that releases 100,000 cubic meters of gas into the air each year, and about 100 barrels of oil per day. Anyone who has spent any amount of time off campus point can testify to the tar. It's probably the single most prolific polluter of Santa Barbara's air.

Included in this gas seep is about 40 metric tons per day of methane gas. Some methane is also dissolved in solution in the ocen water (the seep is a couple hundred feet deep) where it will be oxidized by microbes or escape into the air. More on this significance later.

Off Coal Oil Point is an oil drilling rig - Platform Holly. It turns out that the seepage of gases has dropped in a 13 square kilometer area around Holly. The oil drilling is theorized to be relieving the pressure in the reservoir. The same thing has been observed off of Monterey.

The point? Point 1 is to find where the methane is and drill it. Why don't we mine these methane pockets? Why don't we drill oil there, if there is a supply identified? The oil platforms off of Santa Barbara, while certainly unsightly, actually appear to be doing some damned good things for air quality and for the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Second point - I stated earlier that some of the methane that seeps is dissolved in solution by the ocean water to be oxidized by microbes. During an Ice Age, these vents will be uncovered and exposed solely to the atmosphere. This means ALL of the methane is released into the atmosphere.

What does this mean? Hell, rising water levels may DECREASE the total amount of methane released into the atmosphere because there is more ocean water to dissolve it and more microbes to oxidize it.

Most of the methane vents are under the ocean, anyway.

Any response to my lay understanding of the science and possibilities?

My wife is hotter than your wife.