That's the crappiest feature of the game. I nuke someone and my grass turns to sand.Originally Posted by astralis
gunnut,
how many of your grasslands have turned into desert yet? doncha love global warming in that game?
I'd figure there should be some kind of nuclear winter to offset the global warming.
Also, did you noticed that the internet has Al Gore's picture on it?
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
gunnut,
you bet. the new expansion that came out makes it a lot better, global warming is a lot more rare (they must have been reading this thread
yeah, i noticed. have you noticed that "the internet" is probably also one of the more expensive, useless wonders in the game, too?
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
The "Internet" wonder should actually detract from the owner's GNP (I as look around the room in the meeting, wondering if anyone is catching on that this is *not* me using the word processor to take notes or responding to company email.....)gunnut,
you bet. the new expansion that came out makes it a lot better, global warming is a lot more rare (they must have been reading this thread
yeah, i noticed. have you noticed that "the internet" is probably also one of the more expensive, useless wonders in the game, too?
Tang,
Since tang doesn't care to answer you, I'll try. The huge clouds are composed of sulfuric acid, which I assume was initially formed from water and sulfur dioxide. Venus' unusual heat is caused by strong greenhouse effect due to CO2.
Neptune is cold because it's far away from the Sun.
We really don't know what is causing the warming on Mars, if Mars is indeed warming. The whole cosmic ray mechanism wouldn't work because the climate is so different, i.e., clouds aren't really an issue on Mars. The total solar output has not changed much in recent years, as I understand it, so it ain't a simple case of more photons=more heat. It may be like tang suggests- the temp increase is caused by an increase in dust storms, which may or may not be attributable to any one major cause. Or maybe it's just random. Some years on Earth are hotter than others, for no specific reason. If Mars keeps on warming, though, we should probably look for some cause.
If the Sun increased its radiance by 25%, my guess is that we'd all be dead pretty soon. That's a whole lot of extra energy to deal with.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
No one felt motivated to reply to my post in which I mused about the possibility that global warming may be caused in part by a combination of extracting oil from the earth and the molten rock core of the earth. Oil is a good insulator. Sitting below the earth's upper crust it would have the effect of blocking some heat from the core.
More than 1.1 trillion barrels of oil have been extracted from the earth since 1900. Some 2-3 trillion are estimated to remain.
A barrel covers an area of 2.5 sq.ft. and contains 42 US gal. Thus, 46.2 trillion gals of oil have been pumped from the earth so far.
In terms of area and thickness, oil extracted so far would cover 2.75 trillion square feet (1.1T x 2.50 sq.ft) 16.8 gals deep (45 gal/2.75 sq.ft).
That converts to 986,000 square miles 16.8 gals deep, or 16,546,000 square miles 1 gal deep.
The surface area of the US is 3.7M square miles. That means we have pumped enough oil since 1900 to cover an area 4.47 times the size of the US with 1 gal of oil.
I wouldn't swear to my math since I have some trouble dealing with trillions on a home calculator.
But if these numbers are correct, what effect would the removal of that much thick liquid from the below the earth's surface have on our atmosphere?
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
JAD, what you would have to do is take a look at the total thermal resistance of the earth from the crust, through the upper mantle through the lower mantle mantle all the way to source (i.e. the outer and inner core). Then you would have to take a look at the effective thermal resistance removed of the oil.
The layers thicknesses are (from wikepedia)
crust (to 33km)
the upper mantle (33-410 km)
the transition zone (410-670 km)
the lower mantle (670-2798 km
My guess is even the crust layer has a thermal resistance many many factors of magnitude larger.
The total colume of oil would be 3785 m3/million gallons, or 3,785,000 m3. A cubic kilometer would be (1000m)3, or one billion ( 1x 10(6) ) m3.
This volume of oil in km3 would be .003785 cu km for the entire volume of oil pumped so far.
The total earths surface is 510,065,600 km². The total height of oil per surface area of the world would be
3.785 x10 (-3) km3 /5. X10(8) km2,
resulting in a oil column of less 1x10(-11) km high. This would be close to 1/10,000th of a millimeter high......
Comparing this to the thickness of the crust, or crust and upper mantle, I think that the thermal resistivity of a layer realtive to the crust or mantle would be be extremely small.
Some double check my numbers above, since this is a "back of the envelope" (and first thing Sunday) calculation, and I may have very well dropped two or three zeroes somehwhere.
Last edited by tanq_tonic; 26 Aug 07, at 20:47.
Thanks for taking a cut at it. I may be overemphasizing the effect of oil extraction on atmospheric temperatures. Perhaps the more telling effect is the conversion and burning of the oil at the surface. The whole subject of global warming is so fraught with asssertions and counter-assertions by reputable scientists that it is hard to know what really is causing global warming and whether it can be abated or even decreased by human actions. My own gut feeling is that the warming is mostly part of a cycle of life of the earth and that it will abate in due time according to the law of physics that says every action has a reaction, e.g., warming will bring about a reaction that will lead to cooling. For us humans, used to thinking in terms of our own scale of time, the present situation may seem a calamity, but on the earth's scale of time, it may be nothing but a natural fluctuation that we would be better off adapting to rather than resisting.
You see, even here, thinking people all agree that the earth's average temperature has risen in the last few hundred years and appears to be still rising. The diagreement is on what is causing it to rise. Perhaps you can speak to the question of whether it matters why it is rising.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
I was being sarcastic.
That being said, Venus has approximately 3233X the C02 as Earth, but is Venus which is closer to the sun in proximity even 323X hotter? The answer is no. Why would Earth at .03% CO2 be so at risk for an out of control greenhouse affect? Not to mention Venus is more luminus than all other planetary bodies. It reflects more sun light than any other planet in our solar system and yet its atmosphere is 97% CO2. It seems it is possible that the CO2 is helping to keep the planet Venus somewhat cooler than it would be without it. Venus is very volcanic this can account for at least some of its surface heat.
According to Encarta and many other encyclopedias as Dale also has repeatedly said, water vapor is the leading greenhouse gas on this planet.
The weather on Mars like on our planet is in large part affected by the Sun and the turning of the planet. The heating and cooling creats convection currents and resulting wind, then dust storms, not to mention melting polar caps and warmer temps.Clouds aren't as prevelent but obviously convection currents are.
Ivan
JAD,
You obviously think out side the box. And I commend you for that.
Many a scientist were thinking outside of the box in the seventies questioning the coming ice age. And hey, they were right in doing so. I think we would be well served to think outside the majority box as to the reason for "globalwarming", 'CO2 vs. SUN. One thing the antro-warmers in the end cannot deny is 'THE SUN IS MAKING IT WARMER'. It would be folly to believe otherwise CO2 or no CO2.
Many times the greatest scientist are "THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX". IMHO TANG is an orange drink that became a scientist of sorts and is not trapped in a box, but a jar.
Just joking TANG. I like Tang it taste grrreeaatt!
IVAN
Last edited by brokensickle; 27 Aug 07, at 21:37. Reason: duh huh!
It is about 7-12x hotter. But you assume that the effects of of CO2 are the only driver of heat on the planet; it is not. First, most of the effects of the hotter temperatures on Venus can be explained by the fact that it is 30% closer to Sun. On a per/square km basis, that translates to nearly double the solar flux that the Earth receives.
Second, the pressure of the atmosphere of Venus is close to 100x the pressure of the Earth's surface. This pressure also is a big factor in why Venus is hotter.
Third, you assume that any c02 driver is linear in nature (i.e. 3000x the amount of C02 = 3000x the amount of heat, or b amount x C02 = y amount heat is wrong. C02 drivers operate as a logarithmic effect; every *doubling* of C02 yields some linear increase in heat driving. So, if we have m amount of heating with 100 parts per million C02, we will have 2m heating with 200, 3m with 400, and 4m with 800.
So,
a) the atmosphere of Venus has one wholly differing effect than that of Earth: very high pressure.
b) it receives about twice as much solar radiation;
c) you misstate *how* CO2 works as a GHG.
For at least these three items, your argument that Venus has 3000x C02 so that proves C02 doesnt operate here is wrong.
First, I have never stated that a "runaway effect" will occur here. The simple physics and observations indicate that a doubling of C02 produces a net "heat forcing" on the atmosphere of 3.7 W/m2. Since 1940, the CO2 concentration has risen from 240 ppm to 385 ppm.... and still rising.Why would Earth at .03% CO2 be so at risk for an out of control greenhouse affect?
Accordingly, the "doubling" of the C02 (see last section) from .024% to .048% (from really small to still really small) has the net thermal driving of increasing the energy of the planet by 3.7 watts for each sq. meter of the planet.
So while you scoff at ".03%", what you need to look it is the change in that amount.
A good analogy would be nerve gas. I could say that I "laugh" at you that something that has only .01% of the volume of air could be fatal; but the question *isnt* (for VX and Sarin) "how little the amount is", it is "how much of a punch can that small amount have".
Most studies say not.It seems it is possible that the CO2 is helping to keep the planet Venus somewhat cooler than it would be without it.
Most estimates place the GHG "effect" of water at about 60%, so you would be correct. However, once again, the doubling of that "lil tiny portion" of CO2 has an effect.According to Encarta and many other encyclopedias as Dale also has repeatedly said, water vapor is the leading greenhouse gas on this planet.
First, almost all the water GHG effect takes place near the surface. In the cold, dry portions of the upper atmosphere, there is NO H20 GHG activity. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Second, water is in effectively a steady state closed loop ---- it goes to gas, and elsewhere and somehow, effectively the smae amount is taken out of the air through direct condensation or preciptaiion like rain or snow.
Third, the "life" of H20 in the air (if one were to somehow shut off the cycle) is about 5 days.
CO2 is very different.
First, much of the C02 operates in the high atmosphere. So, we are doing absorption in parts of the atmosphere that were largely "invisible" to heat retention.
Second, CO2 is not in a feedback loop, There is no effective way to directly fix more c02 out of the air.
Third, the "life" of C02 in the atmosphere is decades, not days.
So while you state "water is the most active GHG" you are correct. However, that does not really tell the rest of the story of atmospheric C02.
btw, this post is in direct response to a PM from Sickle.... I'll refrain from the taunts that Sickle provides in his later post....
btw Par, the stuff above about water is can be thought of as a response to your link. Your link really fails to make the distinctions on the actual mechanisms of C02, and treats the entire atmosphere as being constant from the surface to the tip top. It is is not.
finally, ill post the next sections on why I believe thet AGHG are a problem. been extraordinalrily busy at work (had to work much of the weekend) and haven't had much time to put anything together. As I mentioned before, this post is in direct response to sickle's PM to me, asking me *why* I didnt aswer his questions.....
Last edited by tanq_tonic; 27 Aug 07, at 23:31.
You post made me chuckle. I took your comment about my thinking outside the box as a compliment. Thank you.JAD,
You obviously think out side the box. And I commend you for that.
Many a scientist were thinking outside of the box in the seventies questioning the coming ice age. And hey, they were right in doing so. I think we would be well served to think outside the majority box as to the reason for "globalwarming", 'CO2 vs. SUN. One thing the antro-warmers in the end cannot deny is 'THE SUN IS MAKING IT WARMER'. It would be folly to believe otherwise CO2 or no CO2.
Many times the greatest scientist are "THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX". IMHO TANG is an orange drink that became a scientist of sorts and is not trapped in a box, but a jar.
Just joking TANG. I like Tang it taste grrreeaatt!
IVAN
Now, at the risk of provoking your ire I have to say the following statement is curious:
.One thing the antro-warmers in the end cannot deny is 'THE SUN IS MAKING IT WARMER'.
It seems to me obvious that sun is the source of the heat, but there are only two ways the atmosphere would become warmer by solar action 1) the sun it is eminating more short waves during daylight now than 50-300 years ago, or 2) the earth has developed a feature it didn't have before which allows it to retain more heat in its atmosphere.
So, is the sun making it warmer or is more heat being retained?
BTW, to get out of the box again. Do developed areas like cities have
any effect on atmospheric warming? Once I had a client who wanted me to build a house for him with a double basement. The lower one was to be filled with rocks 4-6 inches in size and then filled with water. The water was to be pumped in a loop thru 1/2 inch copper tubes set just under the roof deck and back to the rock "pile" all day long until the sun went down. Then at night the stored heat would be released thru registers in the floor to help heat the house. We never did it because it would have taken 50 years to amortize the cost against the saving in electricity, but it occured to me that defoliating large swatches of the earth's surface would cause greater heat retention. It is, afterall, always warmer in the city during the summer, and brutal on asphault walkways. Also, BTW, geothermal heating systems are gaining vogue again.
cheers
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
First a sceintific question. The absorption you refer to in "parts of the atmosphere that were largely "invisible" to heat retention" would be what?
What is absorbed? From above or below?
Second, have you ever put on the natural philospher's hat to consider that humans (if they are a key factor in global warming) are merely playing out an unconscious role programmed into their genes whose end is to induce global evolution? IMHO, humankind is quite good at extrapolating social and economic effects from natural occurances and labeling them as unnatural, then becoming submerged in debates over causes and remedies without considering the possibility that what is happening to the globe is perfectly in harmony with higher universal mechanics. Ok, I know science won't touch that with a 10-ft pole, but then science is really quiet parochial when it comes to what it chooses to address. On that note, I am heading going out back to enjoy our few remaining days looking at the grass grow.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
They do. One thing being debated is the surface temperature readings being biased by an "urban heat zone".
The idea behind this potential bias is that weather stations that used to be rural are now surrounded by roads and buildings; things that typically retain far more more heat than grass, trees, dirt, etc.
As the areas become urbanized, there is a bias introduced into the record, since the stations are not necissarily "static" environmentally-wise, although they would be geographically speaking.
This is HUGE debate in the surface temperatures community.
More heat is being absorbed and reradiated by increased high atmosphere C02. Water effectively does not exist in the high atmosphere, so the major driver of the greenhouse effect at the high altitudes is CO2 and other GHGs aside from water.
Thermal radiation. From the ground.What is absorbed? From above or below?
That almost seems to the the Global warming corollary to intelligent design..... doesn't it?Second, have you ever put on the natural philospher's hat to consider that humans (if they are a key factor in global warming) are merely playing out an unconscious role programmed into their genes whose end is to induce global evolution? IMHO, humankind is quite good at extrapolating social and economic effects from natural occurances and labeling them as unnatural, then becoming submerged in debates over causes and remedies without considering the possibility that what is happening to the globe is perfectly in harmony with higher universal mechanics. Ok, I know science won't touch that with a 10-ft pole, but then science is really quiet parochial when it comes to what it chooses to address. On that note, I am heading going out back to enjoy our few remaining days looking at the grass grow.
Could it be? sure.
Have I seen anything to make me think that? no.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: