When the glaciers return

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Aug 9, 2017.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065

    I live in Illinois west of Chicago. According to geological survey sediments from the last glaciation were brought in from Valparaiso Indiana which is our present top sediments. About 100 years or less the Kankakee river at about the Illinois river it was a swamp area, it was probable a depressed surface from the last glacial period.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    "For the last 2.5 million years, Earth settled into a rather unusual period of potential instability as we rocked back and forth between ice ages and intervening warm periods, or interglacials. Far from living on a deeply resilient planet, we live on a planet with hair triggers. Industrialised societies are fumbling around with the controls, lulled into a false sense of security by the deceptive stability of the Holocene, the last 11,700 years. Remarkably and accidentally, we have ejected the Earth system from the interglacial envelope and are heading in to unchartered waters."
    https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ws-how-human-activity-is-trashing-the-planet/
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,434
    Some people are so full of self loathing, that they need to project that loathing out onto the entire species.

    The holocene ain't actually been all that stable. The "little ice age" is just one example...........
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    And some people are so blinded by their own greed, they reject science when it might impact their investments in fossil fuels - even slightly.
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,434
    I wouldn't say that they are "blinded" so much as that they are invested.

    I suspect that no one in the fossil fuel industry thinks that we have more'n a couple generations left for oil.

    William C. Durant and William H. Hoover (one a carriage maker and one a harness maker) saw the writing on the wall and disinvested in their current industries, and did quite well for themselves. The future has already started.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    So you are saying that they accept the science, they are just lying about it? Quite possible.
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,434
    I didn't call anyone a liar. Please refrain from attempting to "put words in my mouth".

    Everyone from oil drillers to engine designers is operating on the assumption that oil will be harder to get and more expensive.
    Wherein, then are they lying?

    Anthropologically speaking, the history of man is very much a history of energy use and consumption. As one energy source nears exhaustion, another has been developed and employed.
    There is no reason to believe that that evolution will stop with our generation.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    Which would make their push to burn it all downright evil - greed carried to the point of stereotypical cartoon villainy.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    Generally with an intervening disaster brought on by shortsightedness. There's no reason to presume this time will be different in that respect either.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,434
    as/re:
    Define please.

    ......................
    I can think of only 1 from the indus valley, and perhaps another from current day Israel(though we have strong evidence that that one was primarily caused by climate shift/change)
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    If they reject science because they are "blinded" (i.e. they cannot see it) then they're not lying; they are ignoring the science.
    If they reject science because they are invested in a technology that stands to lose money if that science is accepted - and they know it - then they are lying. In other words, they are being dishonest to protect their investment.
    Agreed. It would be wise, IMO, to work to ensure that changeover is smooth.
     
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,434
    Are we not already on that path with investments in hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind power generation?
    Then, downstream electric and hybrid vehicles, etc...

    ...........................................
    The change-over ain't cheap. Before we voted to spend more to build-out the wind-farms, electricity was 2 cents. kilowatt-hour, now it is 10 cents/kilowatt-hour. So, I'm paying 500% more for a replacement that ain't taking on the whole load(yet).
    .......................
    be green, (ideally)plant a tree for every month of your life...................
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    Yes, we've started down that path. Hopefully fossil fuel interests will not derail us.
    Well, no - you are paying 500% for basically the same mix of energy; perhaps less coal and more natural gas. Solar, for example, is fairly cheap but still a small part of the overall power mix.
    For a comparison of enercy costs, here's an analysis of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from the investment study group Lazard:
    (cost per mwhr: source/lowest/highest cost)




    Solar PV-Rooftop C&I 109 193
    Solar PV-Crystalline Utility Scale 58 70
    Solar PV-Thin Film Utility Scale 50 60
    Solar Thermal with Storage 119 181
    Fuel Cell 106 167
    Microturbine 79 89
    Geothermal 82 117
    Biomass Direct 82 110
    Wind 32 77
    Diesel Reciprocating Engine 212 281
    Natural Gas Reciprocating Engine 68 101
    Gas Peaking 165 218
    IGCC 96 183
    Nuclear 97 136
    Coal 65 150
    Gas Combined Cycle 52 78
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,434
    Correction:
    I'm in Iowa where over 35% of our electricity production is from wind power.

    We lag in solar mostly due to cloudiness, our average daily dose of clear sunny hours per day is only about 4.83. (which peaks in July at 6.16---with a low in December of only 3.1 hours/day).
    And, in an average year/ most years, we use more energy for heating than cooling.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    Some of those numbers seem a bit odd, especially the solar thermal (the PV stuff is broken down in categories, including non-storage options, likewise "wind", solar thermal includes reciprocating engines and the like, scale factors seem to have been overlooked, various forms of storage - such as in fuel cells, say - not considered. etc). These must be investment guides to currently operating commercial systems, and no risk premiums or other externalized costs factored in?
     
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    There is no reason to believe that historical patterns will continue. The stories of the rise and fall of civilizations are largely ones of resource depletion.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    But I think you just refuted your own stance and made Sculptor's.

    While civilizations may rise and fall in the relative short term, each successive one ultimately rises to utilize and require ever more resources.
    So, yes, there would seem to be every reason to assume historical patterns will continue.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    That is not assured, or universal in the past. In many - possibly most - cases, any new rise came from outside, from another civilization, moving in. And it often took centuries.

    I cannot easily determine how long a time passed between the completion of the last Roman Empire road and the next such construction in Italy, but it was long enough that the people who built the new one spoke new languages, used new tools, and ate different foods imported from far away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads

    There is no outside civilization, this time. The resource depletion and carrying capacity damage is world wide.
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,434
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    Of course. Even Florida after the searise will harbor a remnant population, as long as the methane bomb never detonates.
     

Share This Page