Global warming: USGS researchers quantify potential greenhouse gas...

Nov 4, 2012 Full story: Summit County Voice 39

Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey say they've quantified the amount of greenhouse gases that could be released into the atmosphere as Arctic permafrost starts to melt.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#1 Nov 4, 2012
Interesting. What about the Eemian? No arctic ice. Sea levels much higher. No indication of 400 ppm CO2 values in the antarctic ice core data. How'd that happen.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2 Nov 4, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
Interesting. What about the Eemian? No arctic ice. Sea levels much higher. No indication of 400 ppm CO2 values in the antarctic ice core data. How'd that happen.
Gee, maybe ask a climate scientist?

Kaspar et al.(GRL, 2005) perform a comparison of a coupled general circulation model (GCM) with reconstructed Eemian temperatures for Europe. Central Europe (north of the Alps) was found to be 1–2 °C warmer than present; south of the Alps, conditions were 1–2 °C cooler than today. The model (generated using observed GHG concentrations and Eemian orbital parameters) generally reproduces these observations, and hence they conclude that these factors are enough to explain the Eemian temperatures.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#3 Nov 4, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, maybe ask a climate scientist?
Kaspar et al.(GRL, 2005) perform a comparison of a coupled general circulation model (GCM) with reconstructed Eemian temperatures for Europe. Central Europe (north of the Alps) was found to be 1–2 °C warmer than present; south of the Alps, conditions were 1–2 °C cooler than today. The model (generated using observed GHG concentrations and Eemian orbital parameters) generally reproduces these observations, and hence they conclude that these factors are enough to explain the Eemian temperatures.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
I was speaking of the artic. Your reference supports my statement that during the Eemian temps were higher and sea levels were higher.

"At the peak of the Eemian, the climate was much hotter than today, as shown in the graph above. The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[1] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west — near Lubbock, Texas, instead of near Dallas, Texas, where the boundary now exists. The period closed as temperatures steadily fell to conditions cooler and drier than the present, with 468-year long aridity pulse in central Europe,[2] and by 114,000 years ago, a glacial period had returned."

"Sea level at peak was probably 4 to 6m (13 to 20 feet) higher than today (references in Overpeck et al., 2006), with much of this extra water coming from Greenland but some likely to have come from Antarctica. Global mean sea surface temperatures are thought to have been higher than in the Holocene, but not by enough to explain the rise in sea level through thermal expansion alone, and so melting of polar ice caps must also have occurred. Because of the sea level drop since the Eemian, exposed fossil coral reefs are common in the tropics, especially in the Caribbean and along the Red Sea coastlines. These reefs often contain internal erosion surfaces showing significant sea level instability during the Eemian."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#4 Nov 4, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I was speaking of the artic. Your reference supports my statement that during the Eemian temps were higher and sea levels were higher.
It also answers your question of why.
Silica

Thailand

#5 Nov 4, 2012
This is a very interesting article by a preeminent geophysicist, Julian Bulman, and it explains several aspects of the climate change non-debate.

It is reproduced with his permission. I guess I will have to split it in to three posts:

Human ingenuity and technological advances have given us the ability to interact with our environment as no other animal or plant has been able to do through the whole of our planets 4.54 billion year evolution in such a small and inconsequential geological timescale. This includes the ability to produce significant earthquakes and other seismic activities using these technological advancements.

As we have developed our technical abilities we have also inadvertently caused earthquakes and other seismic events. The simplest example of this is our conventional and nuclear weapons capability where various conventional explosions and nuclear tests have registered on the ML scale (Richter Scale). Going so far as to produce upwards of magnitude 5 quakes for some underground nuclear tests in the late 1950’s and also possibly leading to further quakes in otherwise quiet seismic areas.

However weapons are not the only way humans have induced earthquakes and other seismic events. These other inducements include fluid injection into the earth technologies, large earthworks and dam projects, mining and geothermal technologies. Here are several examples of how these technologies interact with seismicity:

Reservoirs - The mass of water in a reservoir alters the pressure in the rock below and through fissures in the rocks, lubricates the faults on which they may sit, which can trigger earthquakes (possibly extremely large magnitude quakes). Reservoir-induced seismic events can be relatively large compared to other forms of induced seismicity.

The first case of reservoir induced seismicity occurred in 1932 in Algeria’s Oued Fodda Dam. There have been similar incidents including the 6.3 magnitude 1967 Koynanagar Earthquake attributed to the Koyna Dam reservoir. During early construction of the Vajont Dam in Italy, there were seismic shocks recorded during its initial fill. After a landslide almost certainly triggered by this increased seismicity filled the reservoir in 1963, the local tsunami in the lake behind the dam caused by the landslide overtopped the dam causing massive a 250m high megatsunami and subsequent flooding with around 2,000 deaths, it was drained and consequently seismic activity has become almost completely non-existent. On August 1, 1975, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake at Oroville, California, was attributed to seismicity from a massive earth-fill dam and reservoir recently constructed and filled there. In Zambia, Kariba Lake may have provoked similar effects.

More recently, the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which caused approximately 68,000 deaths, is another possible example of a large dam project inducing seismicity. An article in Science suggested that the construction and filling of the Zipingpu Dam may have triggered the earthquake. However, researchers have been denied access to seismological and geological data to examine the cause of the quake further. Some experts worry that because of this apparent link with the 2008 Sichuan event the Three Gorges Dam in China may cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of earthquakes.

Mining - Mining leaves voids that generally alter the balance of forces in the rock. These voids may collapse producing seismic waves and in some cases reactivate existing faults causing minor or even large earthquakes. Natural cavern collapses that form sinkholes would produce an essentially identical local seismic event. We have also been responsible for several volcanic inducements by drilling into seismically active areas such as the Sidoarjo mud flow in Porong, Sidoarjo in East Java, Indonesia, which was caused by the company PT Lapindo Brantas sinking a natural gas well and then over pressurising the system by fracking (see below).
Silica

Thailand

#6 Nov 4, 2012
Geothermal energy - Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), a new type of geothermal power technologies that do not require natural convective hydrothermal resources, are known to be associated with induced seismicity. EGS involves pumping fluids at pressure to enhance or create permeability through the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques. Induced seismicity in Basel led to suspension of its HDR project. A seismic hazard evaluation was then conducted, which resulted in the total cancellation of the project in December 2009.

Hydraulic Fracturing - This is particularly pertinent at the current time with the non-debate (scientifically at least) over fracking technologies in the United States (no it’s not a swearword from Battlestar Galactica).

Hydraulic fracturing, to give fracking its correct term, is a technology used to induce or propagate fractures in rocks by injecting pressurised fluids into those fractures and thereby releasing held oil or gas allowing those fossil fuels to migrate either to existing reservoirs or to come directly to the surface. For simplicity, using fracking technologies, we are rapidly increasing and decreasing the pressure on natural faults within the earth’s crust to release hydrocarbons and actually lubricating and extending these natural fracture zones.

If you listened to opinion and editorial nonsense from the media you would assume that fracking is a safe, wholesome technology that is helping America become less dependent on foreign oil so three cheers for the good ol’ US of A. Unfortunately this is not the case and factual studies have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these fracking technologies can and have produced substantial earthquakes and increase seismicity wherever the technology is used.

As a more pertinent warning; there are many fracking techniques currently being undertaken close by or actually on the New Madrid Rift faulting system and, due to not understanding how that fault zone may be activated, we could conceivably activate and therefore induce a magnitude 8 earthquake in the region.

That is why it is vitally important that any person understands that opinion is not fact. To cut to the chase any media source that promotes fracking as a safe technology are lying to the general public and are part of the scams and frauds perpetrated by business interests that could and will likely lead to an extreme event in more seismically active areas of the continental US.

Fracking causes seismic activity as the pressures are released, this is a fact backed up by years of research and evidential support. Fracking also causes many other potential environmental impacts including; contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the various health effects of these. For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or even outright banning its use.

That is not the case in the United States and for exactly the same reasons that there is a non-debate on human induced climate change. Namely this is because corporate America (and all large global producers affecting the environment) have far more money to spend on disinformation campaigns than scientists have on promoting their real and proven, and therefore, factual research.

Thus these corporates spend huge amounts of cash seeding junk science, disinformation campaigns, pressure groups and opinion to the mass media and this directly affects the vast majority of people’s views and opinions who believe that scientists are debating whether Human Induced Climate Change or Human Induced Seismicity is actually a real thing. The reality is far different.
Silica

Thailand

#7 Nov 4, 2012
This is a very interesting article by a preeminent geophysicist, Julian Bulman, and it explains several aspects of the climate change non-debate.

It is reproduced with his permission. I guess I will have to split it in to three posts:

Human ingenuity and technological advances have given us the ability to interact with our environment as no other animal or plant has been able to do through the whole of our planets 4.54 billion year evolution in such a small and inconsequential geological timescale. This includes the ability to produce significant earthquakes and other seismic activities using these technological advancements.

As we have developed our technical abilities we have also inadvertently caused earthquakes and other seismic events. The simplest example of this is our conventional and nuclear weapons capability where various conventional explosions and nuclear tests have registered on the ML scale (Richter Scale). Going so far as to produce upwards of magnitude 5 quakes for some underground nuclear tests in the late 1950’s and also possibly leading to further quakes in otherwise quiet seismic areas.

However weapons are not the only way humans have induced earthquakes and other seismic events. These other inducements include fluid injection into the earth technologies, large earthworks and dam projects, mining and geothermal technologies. Here are several examples of how these technologies interact with seismicity:

Reservoirs - The mass of water in a reservoir alters the pressure in the rock below and through fissures in the rocks, lubricates the faults on which they may sit, which can trigger earthquakes (possibly extremely large magnitude quakes). Reservoir-induced seismic events can be relatively large compared to other forms of induced seismicity.

The first case of reservoir induced seismicity occurred in 1932 in Algeria’s Oued Fodda Dam. There have been similar incidents including the 6.3 magnitude 1967 Koynanagar Earthquake attributed to the Koyna Dam reservoir. During early construction of the Vajont Dam in Italy, there were seismic shocks recorded during its initial fill. After a landslide almost certainly triggered by this increased seismicity filled the reservoir in 1963, the local tsunami in the lake behind the dam caused by the landslide overtopped the dam causing massive a 250m high megatsunami and subsequent flooding with around 2,000 deaths, it was drained and consequently seismic activity has become almost completely non-existent. On August 1, 1975, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake at Oroville, California, was attributed to seismicity from a massive earth-fill dam and reservoir recently constructed and filled there. In Zambia, Kariba Lake may have provoked similar effects.

More recently, the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which caused approximately 68,000 deaths, is another possible example of a large dam project inducing seismicity. An article in Science suggested that the construction and filling of the Zipingpu Dam may have triggered the earthquake. However, researchers have been denied access to seismological and geological data to examine the cause of the quake further. Some experts worry that because of this apparent link with the 2008 Sichuan event the Three Gorges Dam in China may cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of earthquakes.

Mining - Mining leaves voids that generally alter the balance of forces in the rock. These voids may collapse producing seismic waves and in some cases reactivate existing faults causing minor or even large earthquakes. Natural cavern collapses that form sinkholes would produce an essentially identical local seismic event. We have also been responsible for several volcanic inducements by drilling into seismically active areas such as the Sidoarjo mud flow in Porong, Sidoarjo in East Java, Indonesia, which was caused by the company PT Lapindo Brantas sinking a natural gas well and then over pressurising the system by fracking (see below).
Silica

Thailand

#8 Nov 4, 2012
Geothermal energy - Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), a new type of geothermal power technologies that do not require natural convective hydrothermal resources, are known to be associated with induced seismicity. EGS involves pumping fluids at pressure to enhance or create permeability through the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques. Induced seismicity in Basel led to suspension of its HDR project. A seismic hazard evaluation was then conducted, which resulted in the total cancellation of the project in December 2009.

Hydraulic Fracturing - This is particularly pertinent at the current time with the non-debate (scientifically at least) over fracking technologies in the United States (no it’s not a swearword from Battlestar Galactica).

Hydraulic fracturing, to give fracking its correct term, is a technology used to induce or propagate fractures in rocks by injecting pressurised fluids into those fractures and thereby releasing held oil or gas allowing those fossil fuels to migrate either to existing reservoirs or to come directly to the surface. For simplicity, using fracking technologies, we are rapidly increasing and decreasing the pressure on natural faults within the earth’s crust to release hydrocarbons and actually lubricating and extending these natural fracture zones.

If you listened to opinion and editorial nonsense from the media you would assume that fracking is a safe, wholesome technology that is helping America become less dependent on foreign oil so three cheers for the good ol’ US of A. Unfortunately this is not the case and factual studies have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these fracking technologies can and have produced substantial earthquakes and increase seismicity wherever the technology is used.

As a more pertinent warning; there are many fracking techniques currently being undertaken close by or actually on the New Madrid Rift faulting system and, due to not understanding how that fault zone may be activated, we could conceivably activate and therefore induce a magnitude 8 earthquake in the region.

That is why it is vitally important that any person understands that opinion is not fact. To cut to the chase any media source that promotes fracking as a safe technology are lying to the general public and are part of the scams and frauds perpetrated by business interests that could and will likely lead to an extreme event in more seismically active areas of the continental US.

Fracking causes seismic activity as the pressures are released, this is a fact backed up by years of research and evidential support. Fracking also causes many other potential environmental impacts including; contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the various health effects of these. For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or even outright banning its use.

That is not the case in the United States and for exactly the same reasons that there is a non-debate on human induced climate change. Namely this is because corporate America (and all large global producers affecting the environment) have far more money to spend on disinformation campaigns than scientists have on promoting their real and proven, and therefore, factual research.

Thus these corporates spend huge amounts of cash seeding junk science, disinformation campaigns, pressure groups and opinion to the mass media and this directly affects the vast majority of people’s views and opinions who believe that scientists are debating whether Human Induced Climate Change or Human Induced Seismicity is actually a real thing. The reality is far different.
Silica

Thailand

#9 Nov 4, 2012
To put it bluntly 97% of scientists agree that the earth has been heating up over the last 300 years due to the proliferation of carbon we humans have been putting in to our atmosphere with a particularly strong spike in the last 50 years or so. The other 3% of scientists, who are either on the fence or against these theories, are likely to be either financially supported by big business or are dependent on them in some way for funding (it pains me to say that most dissenters are geologists who rely on the energy companies for work).

This is the same for Human Induced Seismicity, seismographs are impossible to fake so any earthquakes that are in the vicinity of these various fracking technologies a link can be made using evidence support systems which is why there is no debate in the scientific community about fracking causing earthquakes, the science is proven and the earthquakes caused cannot be faked, especially in areas with little to no known previous seismic activity.

My advice is to not listen to opinion but to seek out the actual scientific studies for yourselves, if you don't understand them listen to someone that does like a scientist and not a journalist, politician, religious leader or someone else in the pay of big business or who has something to gain by being a denier.

Remember opinions are not facts.‘Nullius in Verba'(“Take nobody's word for it”) the motto of the Royal Society.
PHD

Overton, TX

#10 Nov 5, 2012
All the hot air spewed by the dirtling and mothra made it happen.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#11 Nov 6, 2012
Silica wrote:
To put it bluntly 97% of scientists agree that the earth has been heating up over the last 300 years due to the proliferation of carbon we humans have been putting in to our atmosphere with a particularly strong spike in the last 50 years or so. The other 3% of scientists, who are either on the fence or against these theories, are likely to be either financially supported by big business or are dependent on them in some way for funding (it pains me to say that most dissenters are geologists who rely on the energy companies for work).
.
97% is equal to 77 of 79 self proclaimed climate scientist who responded to a two question internet survey. Look it up.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#12 Nov 6, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It also answers your question of why.
No it doesn't. Read it again. What does it say? It says that orbital dynamics would have caused warmer temps. Doesn't say anything about CO2.

The eemian temps were higher, the ice melted and the seas were higher. The holocene temps even at thermal max, 8 to 9,000 years ago, did not hit the eemian temps. We are well below the thermal max, not likely we will experience greenland ice melt.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#13 Nov 6, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't.
Oh, yes it does!
PHD

Overton, TX

#14 Nov 8, 2012
So does it or not?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#15 Nov 8, 2012
PHD wrote:
So does it or not?
No it doesn't. Scientists know what a proxy study is and how it is compiled. They know the antarctic ice core data is from the antarctic and that climate in both hemispheres is different. You can see this when you look at both data sets, antarctic and greenland overlaid.

Third graph
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

My point is that during the eemian temps were higher and so were sea levels. Ice did melt at those levels and yes orbital dynamics were such that eccentricty was greater therefore the earth's orbit brought us closer to the sun than our current eccentric orbit.

We do not have the high temps of the eemian in this interglacial. Our highest temps were during the thermal max which happened at the time of max obliquity about 8 to 9,000 years ago. If those temps did not melt the ice, then today's temps which are much lower will not melt the ice and cause sea levels to rise.

If you look closely at the comparison of the two graphs, you will notice that altho not the same pattern, the antarctic leads the arctic. The difference in pattern is the result of precession with the northern hemisphere more erratic than the southern because of the wobble.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#16 Nov 8, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't.
Oh yes it does!
PHD

Overton, TX

#17 Nov 8, 2012
Well it does than it doesn’t. Which Scientist is correct? Which ones the have’s or the have not?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#18 Nov 9, 2012
PHD wrote:
Well it does than it doesn’t. Which Scientist is correct? Which ones the have’s or the have not?
Well there's the rub. Climate science is observational science. We just can't control an experiment on our atmosphere.

Observational science requires a prediction be made using the known parameters that can be observed as happening in the future. We take what we know and extrapolate the conditions into the future to predict what that future will look like.

Hansen has a famous prediction, famous if you follow this stuff, that said if we added x, y, or z amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere temps would increase by a, b, or c, respectively.

CO2 went up by x, temps went up by c. What he thought would be the impact didn't happen. The equation didn't work.

The IPCC has predicted certain increases in both values, didn't happen.

Both CO2 and temps have gone up. The big question is what relationship do the two values share. And how much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of man's activity, and what type of activity has contributed to that increase.

My position is, we don't know. We can see what has happened, but to date can't quantify what we see into a formula we can use to predict.

Most of the verification of AGW science comes from computer models, not actual observations. I am not confident the computer models can predict future climates. We learn more everyday about the various systems in our climate and are unable to quantify those systems in such a way as to input that data into a computer. How do you input cloud activity for the next 50 years?

Recently there have been many studies of the ocean oscillations. The arctic oscillation matches the arctic activity. More surprisingly, it matches the glacier mass balance activity in Europe. That's not in any of the computer models. It is very important to the climate of Europe, but not included in the data base used in the predictions of future climate.

It took almost 100 years to find the reason for continental shift. Scientist could see what was going on, they couldn't determine the reason. And many scientists were on the other side of that fence, just as we see scientists on both sides of the climate fence.

In 1977 scientists were looking at the Great Pacific Climate Shift. They didn't know it would be named in the early 1990s the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and that it happens every 30 years.

There used to be a solar constant. Not anymore. Now we know solar activity is much more variable. The sun has it's own orbit and the earth's orbit is not a nice stable circle.

I think climate science is really new and it will take much more study before we can adequately begin to predict our future climate. I think climate scientists are prepared to do the work, but climate science has been hijacked by politicians and the media. Even the very smallest conclusions from limited studies become headlines without the necessity of perspective of what was studied and determined.

I think we will get there. Until then, we don't know everything we should know before implementing public policy to combat a situation we can't even predict.

I guess I could have just answered,'it doesn't'.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#19 Nov 9, 2012
No. ff aka fossil fuel only posts lies!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#20 Nov 9, 2012
Applying the mo of ff aka fossil fuel, we should say all science deniers are illiterate because they don't understand that science progresses.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Geology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Did mining and oil drilling trigger the Haiti e... (Feb '10) Mon Sh1tbird 39
The Global Warming Hoax: A Summary (Oct '10) Mon Earthling-1 223
East Coast Energy to follow up Stellarton gas find Oct 16 LiedTo1tooManyTimes 2
Earthquake Near Las Vegas Oct 5 roll of the dice 1
One of Kansas' strongest recent quakes reported... Oct 3 countryrose2 1
natural weired sound of rocks Oct 2 wungreirhei 1
Japan's surprise eruption Oct 1 Adrian Godsafe MSc 1

Geology People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE