Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ArcticMelt1

Pages: [1] 2
Consequences / Re: Volcanoes
« on: December 24, 2018, 02:34:45 PM »
A similar tsunami has already happened there in 1981 (there were no casualties?).

One possible major hazard emerging from Anak Krakatau would be a tsunami triggered by a collapse of its flank, as the volcano is partly built on a steep wall of the caldera resulting from the 1883 eruption. A small tsunami (c. 2 m high) was experienced on Rakata Island in October 1981 during an awakening of Anak Krakatau (Camus et al. 1987). In the present study, we numerically simulate a sudden southwestwards destabilization of a large part of the Anak Krakatau Volcano, and the subsequent tsunami formation and propagation. We show results concerning the time of arrival and the amplitude of the waves produced, both in the Sunda Strait and on the coasts of Java and Sumatra. We then discuss the relationships between the morphology of Anak Krakatau, the locations of the surrounding islands, the bathymetry of the strait and the triggered waves.

There is a bridge project in the strait

In October 2007, the Indonesian government planned the construction of a 30 km road and railway connection between the islands of Sumatra and Java (the Selat Sunda Bridge), across the 26 km Sunda Strait, at an altitude of 70 m asl (above sea level). In 2009, the ‘pre-feasibility’ study for this 10 billion dollar project was completed and the construction is expected to begin in 2012. Owing to the seismic and volcanic activity in the Sunda region, this project faces many challenges. Krakatau Volcano is located only 40 km away from the future bridge. Some of the bridge's piles may suffer from tsunamis crossing the Sunda Strait, therefore such hazards need to be quantified.

Consequences / Re: Volcanoes
« on: December 24, 2018, 02:21:19 PM »
Another scientific work on the possible consequences of the complete collapse of a young volcano.

Tsunami hazard related to a flank collapse of Anak Krakatau Volcano, Sunda Strait, Indonesia

T. Giachetti, R. Paris, K. Kelfoun and B. Ontowirjo
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 361, 79-90, 3 January 2012,

Numerical modelling of a rapid, partial destabilization of Anak Krakatau Volcano (Indonesia) was performed in order to investigate the tsunami triggered by this event. Anak Krakatau, which is largely built on the steep NE wall of the 1883 Krakatau eruption caldera, is active on its SW side (towards the 1883 caldera), which makes the edifice quite unstable. A hypothetical 0.280 km3 flank collapse directed southwestwards would trigger an initial wave 43 m in height that would reach the islands of Sertung, Panjang and Rakata in less than 1 min, with amplitudes from 15 to 30 m. These waves would be potentially dangerous for the many small tourist boats circulating in, and around, the Krakatau Archipelago. The waves would then propagate in a radial manner from the impact region and across the Sunda Strait, at an average speed of 80–110 km h−1. The tsunami would reach the cities located on the western coast of Java (e.g. Merak, Anyer and Carita.) 35–45 min after the onset of collapse, with a maximum amplitude from 1.5 (Merak and Panimbang) to 3.4 m (Labuhan). As many industrial and tourist infrastructures are located close to the sea and at altitudes of less than 10 m, these waves present a non-negligible risk. Owing to numerous reflections inside the Krakatau Archipelago, the waves would even affect Bandar Lampung (Sumatra, c. 900 000 inhabitants) after more than 1 h, with a maximum amplitude of 0.3 m. The waves produced would be far smaller than those occurring during the 1883 Krakatau eruption (c. 15 m) and a rapid detection of the collapse by the volcano observatory, together with an efficient alert system on the coast, would possibly prevent this hypothetical event from being deadly.

Consequences / Re: Volcanoes
« on: December 23, 2018, 08:33:34 PM »

What will come next?
This is difficult to say, but at least to a large extent it will depend on how much magma continues to rise, whether new collapses occur and so on. A possibility of even larger explosions, pyroclastic flows, tsunamis is clearly increased.
The alert level of the volcano was raised to red.

Consequences / Re: Volcanoes
« on: December 23, 2018, 05:21:36 PM »
As I understand it, the worst has not happened yet. And the threat of a complete explosion of the entire volcano in this year may pass.

If the volcano explodes like in 1883, then the whole world will know about it. The power of explosions in 1883 was about 200 megatons.

Consequences / Re: Volcanoes
« on: December 23, 2018, 04:13:23 PM »
However, this is incorrect information. 2-3 km was the height of the volcano to the eruption of 535 year. Now the volcano explodes more often.

Anak Krakatau currently has a radius of about 2 kilometers (6562 feet) and a height of 324 meters (1063 feet) above sea level, according to Wikipedia. Those data may need to be updated as a variety of September 2012 news reports list the current height of Anak Krakatau at 405 meters (1330 feet).

Anak Krakatau is growing in height at an average rate of about 5 meters (16 feet) per year. Before the historic 1883 eruption, Anak Krakatau stood at approximately 813 meters (2667 feet) above sea level, according to the Global Volcanism Program.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 23, 2018, 03:39:20 PM »
In answer to the the poll question:  Musk envisions eventually 100 persons per ship — with 1,000 ships making the trip during the Earth-Mars rendezvous period every two years.  He figures a Mars population of one million is the minimum to be self-sustaining.

Good news. It is hoped that by the end of the 21st century millions of people will live and work in space. This will be a good insurance against disasters on Earth.

Consequences / Re: Volcanoes
« on: December 23, 2018, 03:36:34 PM »
Wikipedia writes that now the height of the volcano is close to a kilometer. As the mountains grow fast, almost as fast as people build skyscrapers.
For comparison, before the 1883 explosion, the height of the volcano was about 3 kilometers.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 04:42:24 PM »
There is also a hypothesis that a ocean on ancient Earth was formed as a result of meteorite bombardment.

Cool early Earth

The cool early Earth (CEE) theory posits that for part of the Hadean geological eon, at the beginning of Earth's history, it had a modest influx of bolides and a cool climate, allowing the presence of liquid water. This would have been after the extreme conditions of Earth's earliest history between 4.6 and 4.4 billion years (Ga) ago, but before the Late Heavy Bombardment of 4.1 to 3.8 Ga ago. In 2002 John Valley et al argued that detrital zircons found in Western Australia, dating to 4.0–4.4 Ga ago, were formed at relatively low temperatures, that meteorite impacts may have been less frequent than previously thought, and that Earth may have gone through long periods when liquid oceans and life were possible.[1]

In 2016 Gavin Kenny et al. replied to suggestions that zircons were formed by melting during tectonic subduction at plate boundaries, and argued that at least some of them were formed by meteorite impacts.[2]

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 04:33:54 PM »
Actually, Wikipedia provides a large number of alternatives to the superdense atmosphere of the ancient Earth.

The faint young Sun paradox or faint young Sun problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in Earth's history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun's output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch.

Greenhouse hypothesis[edit]
When it first formed, Earth's atmosphere may have contained more greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations may have been higher, with estimated partial pressure as large as 1,000 kPa (10 bar), because there was no bacterial photosynthesis to convert the CO2 gas to organic carbon and gaseous oxygen. Methane, a very active greenhouse gas that reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor, may have been more prevalent as well, with a mixing ratio of 10−4 (100 parts per million by volume).[9][10]

Based on a study of geological sulfur isotopes, in 2009 a group of scientists including Yuichiro Ueno from the Tokyo Institute of Technology proposed that carbonyl sulfide (OCS) was present in the Archean atmosphere. Carbonyl sulfide is an efficient greenhouse gas and the scientists estimate that the additional greenhouse effect would have been sufficient to prevent Earth from freezing over.[11]

Based on an "analysis of nitrogen and argon isotopes in fluid inclusions trapped in 3.0- to 3.5-billion-year-old hydrothermal quartz" a 2013 paper concludes that "dinitrogen did not play a significant role in the thermal budget of the ancient Earth and that the Archean partial pressure of CO2 was probably lower than 0.7 bar".[12] Burgess, one of the authors states "The amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere was too low to enhance the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide sufficiently to warm the planet. However, our results did give a higher than expected pressure reading for carbon dioxide – at odds with the estimates based on fossil soils – which could be high enough to counteract the effects of the faint young Sun and will require further investigation."[13] Also, in 2012-2016 the research by S.M. Som, based on the analysis of raindrop impressions and air bubbles trapped in ancient lavas, have further indicated a low atmospheric pressure below 1.1 bar and probably as low as 0.23 bar during an epoch 2.7 bn years from present.[14]

Following the initial accretion of the continents after about 1 billion years,[15] geo-botanist Heinrich Walter and others contend that a non-biological version of the carbon cycle provided a negative temperature feedback. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolved in liquid water and combined with metal ions derived from silicate weathering to produce carbonates. During ice age periods, this part of the cycle would shut down. Volcanic carbon emissions would then restart a warming cycle due to the greenhouse effect.[16][17]

According to the Snowball Earth hypothesis, there may have been a number of periods when Earth's oceans froze over completely. The most recent such period may have been about 630 million years ago.[18] Afterwards, the Cambrian explosion of new multicellular life forms started.

Greater radiogenic heat[edit]

The radiogenic heat from the decay of 4 isotopes affecting Earth's internal heat budget over time: 40K (yellow), 235U (red), 238U (green) and 232Th (violet). In the past the contribution from 40K and 235U was much higher and thus the overall radiogenic heat output was higher.
In the past, the geothermal release of decay heat, emitted from the decay of the isotopes potassium-40, uranium-235 and uranium-238 was considerably greater than it is today.[19] The figure to the right shows that the isotope ratio between uranium-238 and uranium-235 was also considerably different than it is today, with the ratio essentially equivalent to that of modern low-enriched uranium. Therefore, natural uranium ore bodies, if present, would have been capable of supporting natural nuclear fission reactors with common light water as its moderator. Any attempts to explain the paradox must therefore factor in both radiogenic contributions, both from decay heat and from any potential natural nuclear fission reactors.

The primary mechanism for Earth warming by radiogenic heat is not the direct heating (which contribute less than 0.1% to the total heat input even of early Earth) but rather the establishment of the high geothermal gradient of the crust, resulting in greater out-gassing rate and therefore the higher concentration of greenhouse gases in early Earth atmosphere. Additionally, a hotter deep crust would limit the water absorption by crustal minerals, resulting in a smaller amount of high-albedo land protruding from the early oceans, causing more solar energy to be absorbed.

Greater tidal heating[edit]
The Moon was much closer to Earth billions of years ago,[20] and therefore produced considerably more tidal heating.[21]


Phanerozoic Climate Change
A minority view, propounded by the Israeli-American physicist Nir Shaviv, uses climatological influences of solar wind, combined with a hypothesis of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark for a cooling effect of cosmic rays, to explain the paradox.[22] According to Shaviv, the early Sun had emitted a stronger solar wind that produced a protective effect against cosmic rays. In that early age, a moderate greenhouse effect comparable to today's would have been sufficient to explain an ice-free Earth. Evidence for a more active early Sun has been found in meteorites.[23]

The temperature minimum around 2.4 billion years goes along with a cosmic ray flux modulation by a variable star formation rate in the Milky Way. The reduced solar impact later results in a stronger impact of cosmic ray flux (CRF), which is hypothesized to lead to a relationship with climatological variations.

An alternative model of solar evolution may explain the faint young Sun paradox. In this model, the early Sun underwent an extended period of higher solar wind output. This caused a mass loss from the Sun on the order of 5−10 percent over its lifetime, resulting in a more consistent level of solar luminosity (as the early Sun had more mass, resulting in more energy output than was predicted). In order to explain the warm conditions in the Archean era, this mass loss must have occurred over an interval of about one billion years. However, records of ion implantation from meteorites and lunar samples show that the elevated rate of solar wind flux only lasted for a period of 0.1 billion years. Observations of the young Sun-like star π1 Ursae Majoris matches this rate of decline in the stellar wind output, suggesting that a higher mass loss rate can not by itself resolve the paradox.[24]

Examination of Archaean sediments appears inconsistent with the hypothesis of high greenhouse concentrations. Instead, the moderate temperature range may be explained by a lower surface albedo brought about by less continental area and the "lack of biologically induced cloud condensation nuclei". This would have led to increased absorption of solar energy, thereby compensating for the lower solar output.[25]

On Mars[edit]
Usually, the faint young Sun paradox is framed in terms of Earth's paleoclimate. However, the issue also appears in the context of the climate on ancient Mars, where apparently liquid water was present, in significant amounts (hydrological cycle, lakes, rivers, rain, possibly seas and oceans), billions of years ago. Subsequently, significant liquid water disappeared from the surface of Mars. Presently, the surface of Mars is cold and dry. The variable solar output, assuming nothing else changed, would imply colder (and drier) conditions on Mars in the ancient past than they are today, apparently contrary to the empirical evidence from Mars exploration that suggest the wetter and milder past. An explanation of the faint young Sun paradox that could simultaneously account for the observations might be that the Sun shed mass through the solar wind, though sufficient rate of mass shedding is so far unsupported by stellar observations and models.[26]

An alternative possible explanation posits intermittent bursts of powerful greenhouse gases, like methane. Carbon dioxide alone, even at a pressure far higher than the current one, cannot explain temperatures required for presence of liquid water on early Mars.[27]

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 03:39:51 PM »
As I understand it, it is only theoretically possible to judge the atmospheric pressure 4-4.5 billion years ago - sedimentary rocks with like age on Earth are simply not preserved. In this regard, recent studies of rocks with an age of about 3 billion years completely negate this opinion of the "majority". If 4 billion years ago there were very high atmospheric pressure, then it should have been higher than today and 3 billion years ago. However, recent studies do not confirm this.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 02:46:18 PM »
The early Earth during the Hadean eon is believed by most scientists to have had a Venus-like atmosphere, with roughly 100 bar of CO2

perhaps it is not that surprising.

There is an opposite opinion.

Earth's air pressure 2.7 billion years ago constrained to less than half of modern levels

How the Earth stayed warm several billion years ago when the Sun was considerably fainter is the long-standing problem of the ‘faint young Sun paradox’. Because of negligible1 O2 and only moderate CO2 levels2 in the Archaean atmosphere, methane has been invoked as an auxiliary greenhouse gas3. Alternatively, pressure broadening in a thicker atmosphere with a N2 partial pressure around 1.6–2.4 bar could have enhanced the greenhouse effect4. But fossilized raindrop imprints indicate that air pressure 2.7 billion years ago (Gyr) was below twice modern levels and probably below 1.1 bar, precluding such pressure enhancement5. This result is supported by nitrogen and argon isotope studies of fluid inclusions in 3.0–3.5 Gyr rocks6. Here, we calculate absolute Archaean barometric pressure using the size distribution of gas bubbles in basaltic lava flows that solidified at sea level ∼2.7 Gyr in the Pilbara Craton, Australia. Our data indicate a surprisingly low surface atmospheric pressure of Patm = 0.23 ± 0.23 (2σ) bar, and combined with previous studies suggests ∼0.5 bar as an upper limit to late Archaean Patm. The result implies that the thin atmosphere was rich in auxiliary greenhouse gases and that Patm fluctuated over geologic time to a previously unrecognized extent.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 01:54:14 PM »
This may mean that the tectonic catastrophe on Venus occurred relatively recently.

Why are you assuming that there was a "tectonic catastrophe" on Venus?

Because Venus is much closer to the Sun than the Earth. In addition, there is no magnetic field on it. In this regard, it should lose the atmosphere much faster than the Earth.

The fact that Venus has a superdense atmosphere compared to the Earth is a very mysterious fact.

Recent studies suggest that in the past, ocean and life could exist on Venus.

Venus may have had a shallow liquid-water ocean and habitable surface temperatures for up to 2 billion years of its early history, according to computer modeling of the planet’s ancient climate by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Previous studies have shown that how fast a planet spins on its axis affects whether it has a habitable climate. A day on Venus is 117 Earth days. Until recently, it was assumed that a thick atmosphere like that of modern Venus was required for the planet to have today’s slow rotation rate. However, newer research has shown that a thin atmosphere like that of modern Earth could have produced the same result. That means an ancient Venus with an Earth-like atmosphere could have had the same rotation rate it has today.

In general, current knowledge suggests the similarity of the geology of Venus and the Earth.
This slide shows a comparison of rift zones on the three largest terrestrial planets. The Venus SAR image is of Devana Chasma as it runs from Theia Mons in the north to Phoebe Regio in the south. On Earth, digital topography and bathymetry are used to create this shaded relief portrayal of the East African rift system as it runs north and intersects at the Afar triple junction with the oceanic spreading centers of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The Mars image is a Viking image mosaic of the Valles Marineris system.

Liquid water is needed to form rift tectonics.

But these are all hypotheses, because precisely the direct drilling of its surface can tell exactly about the geological past of Venus. Unfortunately, such a project will be extremely expensive and difficult. I fear that humanity will learn the terrible truth about Venus’s past too late to draw conclusions about the future of the Earth.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 11:34:10 AM »
So are you talking about something that has less probability than 1 in a billion in any given year?

In this regard, the fact that the atmosphere of Venus weighs 90 times more than the atmosphere of the Earth is very mysterious.

The atmosphere of Venus is as massive, which greatly slows the rotation of the planet. A recent example.

In the early 1990s scientists with NASA's Magellan mission calculated that a single rotation of Venus takes 243.015 Earth days, based on the speed of surface features passing beneath the orbiting spacecraft. But scientists now mapping Venus's surface with the European Space Agency's Venus Express orbiter were surprised to find the same features up to 12.4 miles (20 kilometers) from where they were expected to be, based on the previous measurements. According to the new data, Venus is rotating 6.5 minutes slower than it was 16 years ago, a result that's been found to correlate with long-term radar observations taken from Earth.

If over 16 years the period of rotation of Venus has slowed down by 6.5 minutes, then it can be calculated that the slowdown of the period of rotation of Venus from the earth day could happen in just 130 thousand years. This may mean that the tectonic catastrophe on Venus occurred relatively recently.

Unfortunately, Venus is studied very little. Everyone is trying to find a primitive life on a small and dry Mars. But probably seismic exploration and core drilling on Venus would be much more useful. This would solve the main mystery - why a planetary catastrophe occurred on Venus.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 11:19:10 AM »

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 21, 2018, 05:18:57 PM »
If the Daleks took over Earth it would be easier on Mars too.

Both scenarios are equally likely....

Unfortunately, a catastrophic option cannot be ruled out. The nearest planet to us is very similar to Earth in size and mass. Now there are many works that suggest the existence of life and oceans on Venus in the past. It cannot be ruled out that there once was also a rational civilization, which destroyed both itself and the planet.

Probably now terrestrial civilization burns carbon more rapidly than during any eruptions of the supervolcanoes in the entire geological history of the Earth. Therefore, dangerous consequences for tectonic plates are possible.

For example, recent work.

Journal of Earth Science and Engineering 4 (2013) 1-53
Anthropogenic Earth-Change: We are on a Slippery Slope, Breaking New Ground and It’s Our Fault—A Multi-Disciplinary Review and New Unified Earth-System Hypothesis
C. Allen

Received: January 01, 2014 / Accepted: January 12, 2014 / Published: January 25, 2014

Abstract: Human activity could be changing the Earth’s foundations themselves, as we affect multiple systems interacting in feedback mechanisms changing the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and even the lithosphere (solid surface) and asthenosphere (deformable semi-molten rock layer beneath). Anthropogenic movement of ice, water and sediment alters viscosity and movement of the asthenosphere; this induces earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanism and rifting, and may induce plate-tectonic-change. These processes may account for the timing of unexplained contemporary Icelandic, New Zealand, Chilean, Japanese and Indonesian seismicity, volcanism and magma movement. Climate-change and sea-level rise are creating: slip-planes from differential water pore-pressures and/or weakening of previous fault-planes; sediment-change and altered hydrology and reservoir-mass, inducing isostasy and further change in pore-pressure. Loss of plant biomass and diversity alter hydrology, precipitation and transpiration, causing isostasy and further sediment- and climate-change. Increased ocean-mass, temperatures and acidity, reduced oceanic oxygenation, and increased transport of (organic) sediments elevate the production and destabilisation of gas-hydrates, causing slumps and tsunamis. Isostasy and altered viscosity of the asthenosphere increase seismicity, slope and faulting, which are the prime triggers for slumping and tsunamis.
Altered asthenosphere flows hasten subduction and rifting landward of subduction, enhancing volcanism. All of these processes predominantly coincide, temporally and spatially, in the coasts and continental margins, and the Pacific ring-of-fire, although response times and extents may vary from immediate to multi-millennial scales and from negligible to catastrophic. Contemporary Icelandic seismic and volcanic activity is explained by depleted magma reserves on the north-western side of the mid-ocean ridge as asthenosphere moves from the constructive boundary under deglaciating and rising Greenland.

Key words: Anthropogenic climate-change, volcanism, tectonism, vegetation-change, sedimentation, isostasy.

Several charts from there

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 21, 2018, 04:41:39 PM »
If self sustaining underground cities can survive in mars, they can certainly survive climate change on Earth.

It is doubtful. If the Earth's atmosphere as a result of a tectonic catastrophe warms up to 100-200 degrees Celsius, then it will be much easier to survive on Mars than in Earth's bunkers. Cooling technologies are much more complex than warming technologies. For example, you can compare how long the landing missions on Venus and Mars worked.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 20, 2018, 04:10:41 PM »
I would not say that astronautics is not a serious matter. Probably only space technology will save the Earth from the greenhouse catastrophe. For example, the deployment on of near-earth orbit huge screens that will reduce the flow of solar radiation and cool the earth's surface.
-and render PV panels obsolete. :P

This option can be used when the terrestrial biosphere and civilization will be on the verge of destruction.

It is much better than spraying aerosols in the atmosphere, as it does not pollute the atmosphere with harmful substances.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 20, 2018, 04:05:56 PM »
I would not say that astronautics is not a serious matter. Probably only space technology will save the Earth from the greenhouse catastrophe. For example, the deployment on of near-earth orbit huge screens that will reduce the flow of solar radiation and cool the earth's surface.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 20, 2018, 08:07:42 AM »
About human colonization of space/other planets as a solution to climate change, overcrowding and carrying capacity issues, I believe that a humanity too stupid/weak-willed to avoid these long-term catastrophies will also be too stupid to colonize space successfully, a much harder endeavor than covering the globe with solar panels and curbing human procreation.

In theory, you may be right. If people can develop cheap carbon disposal technology, then we can terraform Venus. The only question is how much time does mankind have for solving the problem of climate change. If we do not have time to solve these problems or at least minimize them, then we can share the fate of dinosaurs.

Plus obviously more effort is needed to explore Venus. This is necessary for a better understanding of the catastrophic degassing that took place there. In recent years, appear discoveries on Venus of possible traces of the ancient ocean and plate tectonics.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 19, 2018, 11:52:04 PM »
WAIS melted during MIS5e (and 11). So why no catastrophe then ?


Possible then there was a too low rate of increase in the amount of greenhouse gases.

Now the level of CO2 is growing at almost cosmic speed. In just a few decades, from a maximum in the last 100 thousand years to a maximum in the last 20 million years.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 19, 2018, 11:21:12 PM »
1) Predictions of doom from increased seismicity due to glacier melt must first contend with the fact that this did not occur during MIS5e or 11.

In theory, this can be explained that no large tectonic faults under the melting largest glaciers of the northern hemisphere (Labrador, Scandinavian and Greenland).

Now the situation is opposite. Large faults were found under both parts of Antarctica.

Black dashed lines denote the East Antarctic Rift System (Ferraccioli et al. 2011)

GSM - Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains
LV - Lake Vostok

In this regard, the melting of Antarctica is much more dangerous than the melting of the northern ice sheets.

Policy and solutions / Space colonization
« on: December 19, 2018, 10:26:09 PM »
Who says?

This option follows from the following facts:

1) The amount of carbon in the mantle is on many orders of magnitude greater than in the atmosphere or the crust.

It has been estimated that the solid earth as a whole contains 730 ppm of carbon, with 2000 ppm in the core and 120 ppm in the combined mantle and crust.[55] Since the mass of the earth is 5.972×1024 kg, this would imply 4360 million gigatonnes of carbon. This is much more than the amount of carbon in the oceans or atmosphere (below).

In combination with oxygen in carbon dioxide, carbon is found in the Earth's atmosphere (approximately 810 gigatonnes of carbon) and dissolved in all water bodies (approximately 36,000 gigatonnes of carbon). Around 1,900 gigatonnes of carbon are present in the biosphere. Hydrocarbons (such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas) contain carbon as well. Coal "reserves" (not "resources") amount to around 900 gigatonnes with perhaps 18,000 Gt of resources.[56] Oil reserves are around 150 gigatonnes. Proven sources of natural gas are about 175×1012 cubic metres (containing about 105 gigatonnes of carbon), but studies estimate another 900×1012 cubic metres of "unconventional" deposits such as shale gas, representing about 540 gigatonnes of carbon.[57]

2) Melting glaciers increase seismic activity.
An Enhanced Seismic Activity Observed Due To Climate Change: Preliminary Results from Alaska
This study will show that increasing seismic activity for the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA), an indicator of increasing geothermal forcing, is highly correlated with average global temperatures from 1979 to 2015 (r = 0.785).

3) The level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is close to historical highs in the entire geological history of the Earth.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 19, 2018, 10:03:47 PM »
Ok, renamed the topic.

Policy and solutions / Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
« on: December 19, 2018, 09:54:33 PM »
How about changing the title of this thread, and then explain in what way this is a policy and/or solution?

How is the best to rename a topic?

The solution in the thread suggested by Stephen Hawking.

Professor Stephen Hawking isn’t afraid to state his opinion bluntly and honestly. He has publicly expressed his fears about the future of artificial intelligence (AI), the need for a new Space Age, the serious realities of global warming, how we might reach another Solar System, and that, as a species, humans must leave Earth in order to survive.

Hawking has previously stated that our time on Earth is limited to 100 years, after originally estimating 1,000 years. But, in a new announcement in a video presentation this past Sunday, November 5th at the Tencent Web Summit in Beijing, he gave the human species less than 600 years before we will need to leave Earth, according to the British newspaper The Sun.

Earlier in the year, Hawking said that: “We are running out of space and the only places to go to are other worlds. It is time to explore other solar systems. Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves. I am convinced that humans need to leave Earth.”

A major concern of Hawking, and others, is that climate change is already causing rapid sea level rise. It is possible that, if this progression isn’t diminished by a cut in emissions, a significant percentage of what is currently land will be under water. (This is, of course, in addition to the other life-threatening effects of climate change.) Additionally, as this continues, populations are set to continue increasing, which could have disastrous consequences. Hawking is confident that within the next few hundred years, Earth will no longer be a habitable option for humans.

Policy and solutions / Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
« on: December 19, 2018, 09:41:49 PM »
Reusable rockets have been around for a long time, they just haven't proved to be efficient.

This happened because few rockets were launched into space.

If the greenhouse and tectonic catastrophe becomes obvious to the majority, then this should allow a sharp increase in funding for the creation of space colonies. Then reusable rockets will be very useful. In addition, there are many ideas for the development of space tourism.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: December 19, 2018, 09:35:02 PM »
More recent forecast from last year.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: December 19, 2018, 09:28:47 PM »
Forecast world emission CO2 untill 2040 year from 2016 year.

In general business as usual.

Policy and solutions / Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
« on: December 19, 2018, 08:54:47 PM »
We've tried at least twice in domes here on earth. Why would we be more successful in space - or on Mars?

The failures of experiments with the artificial biosphere in theory can be explained by the lack of funding.

Now the chances of creating space colonies have increased significantly. There are reusable rockets, which will reduce the cost of launching rockets into space.

Policy and solutions / Space colonization
« on: December 19, 2018, 08:02:53 PM »
As you know, the main problem in stopping global warming is the overpopulation of the planet. An attempt to make the life of all earthlings worthy will lead to the rapid collapse of the planet's biosphere. In this regard, in all villains of action movies the beat how reduce the population of the Earth. For example, in the films "Moon Racer" and "Agent Kingsman". But of course the repetition of the work of Adolf Hitler is doomed to failure. In this regard, in any case, the world economy will move along the “business as usual” path. Obviously, this development will lead the biosphere and the climate system to a complete collapse. Probably come true the recent forecast of Stephen Hawking.

Humans will turn the planet into a giant ball of fire by the year 2600, said physicist Stephen Hawking.

Overcrowding and energy consumption will render Earth uninhabitable in just a few centuries, Hawking said via video on Sunday at the Tencent WE Summit in Beijing.

The scenario of turning the Earth into Venus is obvious. The rapid melting of glaciers will lead to destabilization of tectonic plates, huge gas emissions from the mantle and evaporation of the oceans.

In this regard, there is a need to create space colonies for the salvation of mankind. How many people can put such a colony?

For example, Elon Mask believes that he can take on Mars about a million colonists.

In general, in your opinion, can you save people in space colonies? And how many?

The rest / Re: Debt in a decreasing economy
« on: December 19, 2018, 05:35:37 PM »
The world economy is such a trifle compared to the upcoming planetary catastrophe.

Look at the three great graphics about the gloomy future of the planet.

No one wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (hydrocarbons are being extracted more and more, their production is getting cheaper). Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry will rise around 3% in 2018, the fastest in 7 years.

The content of greenhouse gases is already the maximum in the last 20 million years, and in the coming decades will be the maximum in the entire history of the planet.

Human activities in the 21st century produce major disturbances in the gravitational field of the Earth (melting glaciers and intensifying earthquakes, depleting groundwater).

Recent studies say that East Antarctica is a fragile mixture of parts of different plates.

The emergence of strong earthquakes in West Antarctica will lead to a sharp acceleration of the collapse of ice sheets.

Obviously, glaciers are now holding back movement in the faults. When liquid water or magma from the ocean, from melting or lithosphere enters the rift, it will begin to slide better.

The important triggers for the ice sheet collapse are losses at the interface with the sea and then acceleration of the huge glaciers that drain there.

Since the earthquakes as a response can only happen after that i think it is all kind of moot. Also ice is quite elastic so you can only shake bits of a slope.

Of course, the disintegration of the West Antarctic Shield will strongly depend on the warming of the ocean.

But on the other hand, it is important to note that there is a network of active tectonic faults beneath the ground Eastern shield - the largest accumulations of ice on the planet.

These faults are called the East Antarctic Rift System.

Black dashed lines denote the East Antarctic Rift System (Ferraccioli et al. 2011)

GSM - Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains
LV - Lake Vostok

The initialization of the strongest earthquakes in West Antarctica can provoke strong earthquakes in East Antarctica.

There are also possible evidences of high seismic activity during the past great melting of glaciers. This is indicated by the anomalous high number of tsunamis on the California coast 8-9 thousand years ago:

The Santa Barbara Basin to the north has an excellent Holocene record of floods and earthquakes (Du et al., 2018). Here is a plot showing the ages of possible earthquake triggered turbidites (submarine landslide deposits) from the Santa Barbara Basin.

Now the glaciers of Antarctica are "castle" on a huge ring of the strongest earthquakes around the Pacific Ocean.

The whole question is only when this lock will be broken.

There are other good reasons Venus´ atmosphere is what it is:

Unlike Earth, Venus lacks a magnetic field. Its ionosphere separates the atmosphere from outer space and the solar wind. This ionised layer excludes the solar magnetic field, giving Venus a distinct magnetic environment. This is considered Venus's induced magnetosphere. Lighter gases, including water vapour, are continuously blown away by the solar wind

Good point. But this does not explain the superdense atmosphere on Venus. Moreover, current knowledge suggests that oceans could exist on Venus in the past. This is evidenced by the discovery of rift zones, which can be formed only at the bottom of the oceans.

PS: If there was a strong earthquake in Antarctica would that matter? Ice quakes might be more relevant?

Then again i live in the Netherlands so sea level rise is more a concern to me then earthquakes (i have slept through all of them so far, not something you can do in Mexico).

Of course. The emergence of strong earthquakes in West Antarctica will lead to a sharp acceleration of the collapse of ice sheets.

Obviously, glaciers are now holding back movement in the faults. When liquid water or magma from the ocean, from melting or lithosphere enters the rift, it will begin to slide better.

An example of artificial earthquakes are mining areas. There is even a feature film on how to make a big earthquake:

Bond and Sutton infiltrate Zorin's mine and discover his plot to detonate explosives beneath the lakes along the Hayward and San Andreas faults, which would cause them to flood, causing the Silicon Valley area to be permanently submerged underwater. A larger bomb is also in the mine to destroy a "geological lock" that prevents the two faults from moving at the same time. Once the bombs are in place, Zorin and his security chief Scarpine flood the mines, killing the mine workers. Sutton escapes, while Bond and May Day are stranded in the mine. When May Day realizes that Zorin has abandoned her, she helps Bond remove the larger bomb by putting the device onto a handcar and pushing it out of the mine. When the handcar's brakes block their attempt, May Day stays on it to make it roll clear of the mine; once outside, the bomb explodes, killing her.

I still hope that we have time to stop a future tectonic catastrophe. The earth changes are in slow motion, so I think that we will understand the danger and react, before it happens. We should seek the CO2 concentration of 350 ppm on the atmosphere. And I think that we can and must make it happen.

There are big doubts. For example, Japan, which has suffered greatly from the strongest earthquake, on the contrary, increased carbon dioxide emissions. It is very likely that only the creation of a backup space infrastructure is the best way out of the coming catastrophe. The example of Venus suggests that it is possible to save the Earth too late.

I think that earthquakes will increase worldwide, if the ice melts on Antarctica & Greenland, making sea level rise. I just hope that we will be able to stop emissions and reduce CO2 concentration on the atmosphere, before we have earthquakes all around us.

In the theory of future tectonic catastrophe can be explained why in the atmosphere of Venus is a huge amount of carbon dioxide. Probably the greenhouse catastrophe on Venus led to increased seismic activity, volcanism and the release of additional greenhouse gases from the lithosphere.

Recent studies show that melting glaciers increases the frequency of earthquakes.
An Enhanced Seismic Activity Observed Due To Climate Change: Preliminary Results from Alaska

This study will show that increasing seismic activity for the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA), an indicator of increasing geothermal forcing, is highly correlated with average global temperatures from 1979 to 2015 (r = 0.785).

I wanted to ask what is the probability of the occurrence of strong earthquakes in Antarctica?

As it is known a huge rift passes through Antarctica (the black line in the diagram below):

But in Antarctica is not observed strong earthquakes.

What is the reason? Glaciers inhibit movement in the rifts?

Can the melting of glaciers cause movement in the faults and strong earthquakes in Antarctica?

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 22, 2018, 02:25:55 PM »
Other record charts.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 22, 2018, 02:22:38 PM »
Now this figure is more than 83 degrees north latitude.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 22, 2018, 02:16:08 PM »
This year set a 465-year record!
The position of the ice edge (the gray vertical bars) in August between Svalbard and Franz Josef Land for the period 1553–2012, given as the mean latitude within the sector 20–45°E (modified after Vinje 1999 and updated to summer 2012).

Who else doubts global warming?

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 22, 2018, 02:11:08 PM »

Sea ice extent on the Atlantic side of the #Arctic has reached a new all-time record low for the region (combined Barents-Kara-Greenland Seas). Each line shows one year from 1979 (purple) to 2017 (white). The previous record was just last year.

[Daily data is from the @NSIDC]

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: July 06, 2018, 05:23:57 PM »
Map of Arctic wells by 2015 year. Well-seen absence of wells in the Kara Sea, the East Siberian Sea and the Chukchi Sea (major part of the Arctic shelf).

Consequently, all estimates of the stocks of frozen greenhouse gases in the Arctic are very inaccurate.
Pardon me but  am totally confused - Arctic wells? What exactly is referred to by this? A link to the origin of that map would help a lot.

Arctic Drilling Existing Wells - Royal Dutch Shell Investor Presentation

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 17, 2018, 06:37:03 PM »
Now there is less ice around Svalbard than usually in September.  :'(

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 17, 2018, 06:20:54 PM »
In the Central Arctic is still a record.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: June 12, 2018, 09:22:15 PM »
Today, on the island of Kotelny, the record high maximum temperature (+11.4С) is up to June 19 (records from 1936).

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 09, 2018, 09:26:55 PM »
Over the past two days, the gap between 2018 and the remaining years has only increased.

Arctic background / Re: 2018 north pole expeditions
« on: June 09, 2018, 02:53:53 PM »
Not 2018, but it's interesting.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: June 09, 2018, 12:25:23 PM »
Miracles! At 16-00 in Khatanga already +29.1С.

This is the maximum value in the meteorological annals of Khatanga from 1928 until June 18 (June 18 2014 was +32.9С).

Let's wait for the maximum temperature value today in Khatanga (June record in Khatanga - June 18 2014 was +32.9С).

Pages: [1] 2