Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios
| 27-11-2024 03:53 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(22991) |
Im a BM wrote: Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-12-2024 21:26 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1925) |
<--- Click on "sealover" (to the left of the arrow) It will open the "sealover" profile page. The "Last 10 posts:" shows ten biogeochemistry-related threads. Any of them can be opened with a click. The first post on page 1 of this thread is by "sealover", to open profile page. ----------------------------------------------------------------- One of the more vicious feedbacks aggravating global warming occurs in the tundra. As frozen, buried organic carbon thaws, it becomes available to decompose and release carbon dioxide. HUGE amounts of carbon dioxide. Down along with the buried, frozen organic carbon is trapped methane. HUGE amounts of trapped methane. It gets released upon thawing, and you can torch it off with a cigarette lighter as it is emitted from the ground. The warming atmosphere causes release of greenhouse gases from the tundra. Greenhouse gases released from the tundra cause warming of the atmosphere. But another vicious feedback wasn't included in any of the 1980s predictions for what could happen to the tundra under global warming. Nobody predicted large scale pyrite oxidation turning the rivers orange. "Rivers in Alaska are turning orange. The reason surprised even scientists." This is the title of the story today (May 29, 2024) on CNN, by Fabiana Chaparro. I first saw it about four days ago: "Alaska's rivers are turning orange as thawing permafrost releases metals into waterways." Published May 24, 2024, in Smithsonian Magazine, by Christian Thorsberg. Both these stories are about a report published May 20, 2024: J. O'Donnell, et al. 2024. Metal mobilization from thawing permafrost to aquatic ecosystems is driving rusting of arctic streams. Communications Earth & Environment. (Nature) 5 article 268. The phenomenon was first widely noted in 2018, but satellite imagery confirms it was observable as far back as 2008. This thread includes discussion of carbon dioxide and methane release from thawing permafrost. But the orange rivers aren't about release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Thawing permafrost contains iron pyrite, along with all the toxic elements that get sequestered during pyrite formation. In the frozen state, the pyrite wasn't going anywhere or doing anything. Once thawed and exposed to oxygen, microorganisms oxidize the sulfide and (ferrous) iron(II) contained in the pyrite, to release ferric iron(III) and sulfuric acid. Some of the orange streams have pH as low as 3. As the papers' titles imply, in addition to ferric iron(III), there are far more toxic metals also released in the pyrite oxidation process. The biogeochemistry of climate change is about more than greenhouse gases. Aquatic ecosystems are also impacted in other ways. Acidic orange rivers in Alaska are one example. Depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, and consequent diminishing of bioavailable carbonate ion for shell formation is another example. Regarding the toxic metals identified to be of concern in the orange rivers, I can draw upon my own experience investigating the legacy of an orange river created by mercury mining operations. Microbial oxidation of iron pyrite, as always, was the biggest contributor of sulfuric acid and ferric iron(III) surface water. Ferric iron(III) is only soluble at the acidic pH at the point of origin. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the ferric iron(III) precipitates out as iron floc. Much of the floc can remain suspended in solution and travel for miles with the stream flow. Eventually, it all settles out as hydroxides or oxides of ferric iron(III). Cinnabar is mercury sulfide, and it also oxidized in the mine drainage to generate sulfuric acid and soluble mercury. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the dissolved mercury precipitated out. It co-precipitated with the iron floc, chemically bonded to it. So, the orange rivers in Alaska may carry sediment loads with some toxic metals bonded to iron floc. It would depend on what metals were along with the iron pyrite in the thawing permafrost. All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning 3/4 way down page 5 |
| 09-12-2024 19:42 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22991) |
Im a BM wrote: There is no 'feedback'. What global warming? Im a BM wrote: Carbon isn't organic. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not methane. Im a BM wrote: It isn't trapped. You can torch it off from the ground. Several wildfires start this way. Im a BM wrote: No gas or vapor is the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing, Robert. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM wrote: There is no 'feedback'. Im a BM wrote: What global warming? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: Some Alaska rivers have always been 'orange'. Happens in Idaho and Canada too. Im a BM wrote: They are not 'turning' orange. They've been orange for as long as anyone can remember. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 10-02-2025 20:56 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1778) |
WEATHER OR NOT you call it "CLIMATE", it is CHANGING! Extreme-weather-related disasters keep setting new records. January, 2025 was the hottest January ever recorded. Following 2024, the hottest year ever recorded. The economic reality of climate change has to be addressed. Even if the root cause cannot be acknowledged, for political reasons. It is no coincidence that virtually all scientists have reached the same conclusion. The contrarians do not have any actual "scientists" among their ranks, nor any credible SOURCE of any kind they can cite to support their denialist assertions. Weather or not you call it "climate", that shit is CHANGING in a seriously frightening manner. ---------------------------------------------- Vicious feedbacks influencing magnitude of climate change... One of the more vicious feedbacks aggravating global warming occurs in the tundra. As frozen, buried organic carbon thaws, it becomes available to decompose and release carbon dioxide. HUGE amounts of carbon dioxide. Down along with the buried, frozen organic carbon is trapped methane. HUGE amounts of trapped methane. It gets released upon thawing, and you can torch it off with a cigarette lighter as it is emitted from the ground. The warming atmosphere causes release of greenhouse gases from the tundra. Greenhouse gases released from the tundra cause warming of the atmosphere. But another vicious feedback wasn't included in any of the 1980s predictions for what could happen to the tundra under global warming. Nobody predicted large scale pyrite oxidation turning the rivers orange. "Rivers in Alaska are turning orange. The reason surprised even scientists." This is the title of the story today (May 29, 2024) on CNN, by Fabiana Chaparro. I first saw it about four days ago: "Alaska's rivers are turning orange as thawing permafrost releases metals into waterways." Published May 24, 2024, in Smithsonian Magazine, by Christian Thorsberg. Both these stories are about a report published May 20, 2024: J. O'Donnell, et al. 2024. Metal mobilization from thawing permafrost to aquatic ecosystems is driving rusting of arctic streams. Communications Earth & Environment. (Nature) 5 article 268. The phenomenon was first widely noted in 2018, but satellite imagery confirms it was observable as far back as 2008. This thread includes discussion of carbon dioxide and methane release from thawing permafrost. But the orange rivers aren't about release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Thawing permafrost contains iron pyrite, along with all the toxic elements that get sequestered during pyrite formation. In the frozen state, the pyrite wasn't going anywhere or doing anything. Once thawed and exposed to oxygen, microorganisms oxidize the sulfide and (ferrous) iron(II) contained in the pyrite, to release ferric iron(III) and sulfuric acid. Some of the orange streams have pH as low as 3. As the papers' titles imply, in addition to ferric iron(III), there are far more toxic metals also released in the pyrite oxidation process. The biogeochemistry of climate change is about more than greenhouse gases. Aquatic ecosystems are also impacted in other ways. Acidic orange rivers in Alaska are one example. Depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, and consequent diminishing of bioavailable carbonate ion for shell formation is another example. Regarding the toxic metals identified to be of concern in the orange rivers, I can draw upon my own experience investigating the legacy of an orange river created by mercury mining operations. Microbial oxidation of iron pyrite, as always, was the biggest contributor of sulfuric acid and ferric iron(III) surface water. Ferric iron(III) is only soluble at the acidic pH at the point of origin. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the ferric iron(III) precipitates out as iron floc. Much of the floc can remain suspended in solution and travel for miles with the stream flow. Eventually, it all settles out as hydroxides or oxides of ferric iron(III). Cinnabar is mercury sulfide, and it also oxidized in the mine drainage to generate sulfuric acid and soluble mercury. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the dissolved mercury precipitated out. It co-precipitated with the iron floc, chemically bonded to it. So, the orange rivers in Alaska may carry sediment loads with some toxic metals bonded to iron floc. It would depend on what metals were along with the iron pyrite in the thawing permafrost. All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning 3/4 way down page 5 (Into the Night will not be able to resist the compulsion to take a spam on this) |
| 11-02-2025 11:16 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14955) |
sealover wrote: WEATHER OR NOT you call it "CLIMATE", it is CHANGING! Did you mean "Whether or not ..." or was there no pun intended? Whenther or not you call it Climate Change, you still need to define what "it" is. There is no Blumizivush either. sealover wrote:Extreme-weather-related disasters keep setting new records. Nope. The record was set by the great flood when extreme weather killed all life on the planet and caused the waters to prevail 15 cubits. That record has never been approached, much less reached. sealover wrote: January, 2025 was the hottest January ever recorded. You are making a statement about humanity's past ability to record, not about any summer earth might have had. Also, you well know that nobody can compute the temperature for a season. You've always been gullible, haven't you. sealover wrote: Following 2024, the hottest year ever recorded. How was this determined without a valid dataset? sealover wrote: The economic reality of climate change has to be addressed. You have explained exactly why all mention of Climate Change and of Global Warming must be removed from all education curricula and all government documentation. That religion is an economic cancer. sealover wrote: Even if the root cause cannot be acknowledged, There is no cause for any nonexistent effect. sealover wrote: It is no coincidence that virtually all scientists have reached the same conclusion. It is no coincidence that you have deluded yourself into believing that you are virtually all scientists. It's funny that you view yourself as a scientist when you won't unambiguously define your terms. Does your straightjacket match the padding on the walls of your cell? sealover wrote: The contrarians ... This is your euphemism for anyone who is not straightjacketed and in your cell with you. sealover wrote: ... do not have any actual "scientists" among their ranks, You refer to your clergy as "actual scientists." You only know how to speak in euphemisms. Learn some science. By the way, actual chemists know that water evaporates. sealover wrote: Vicious feedbacks influencing magnitude of climate change... Are you trying to see homw many egregious errors you can squeeze into one sentence? You don't even know what a feedback is, do you? You still haven't figured out what the gibberish "global climate" is supposed to mean, how it can possibly change, or what an order of climate magnitude would represent, have you ... at least not that you can express in any semi-plausible and somewhat coherent manner, right? sealover wrote: One of the more vicious feedbacks aggravating global warming occurs in the tundra. Let me guess, it can't be seen by the naked eye, right? sealover wrote: As frozen, buried organic carbon thaws, it becomes available to decompose and release carbon dioxide. HUGE amounts of carbon dioxide. You're late to the ball game. trafn (Robert Ben Mitchell) already tried to hock his book on the matter here on Climate-Debate. He tried selling it on Amazon but you can check his first posts on this site to get a free copy on PDF. Let me see if I can attach it below.  https://www.amazon.com/Bursting-Atmosphere-what-happens-falls-ebook/dp/B00P075WQU/ref=sr_1_3?crid=171B9XZL33349&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ZuVcHZFkGkT_hgUhAOh0iIBOar2MUVnUDpoVmfZ-eEWs384pMwtK8fwxzoGBkk9zjxNOplWyoi4wQ4jh9a2Pc64AdyPTOBbmJ-ekBlO_uXIb3XVFct9dmy23SUfODPAfRjsb13Y0yHwV1KTZ-R-IY__TffX9JtOnZM0FDP9lxOqYIdkYtOh86wnMqigJHE2NJQRCcFSOpT7b_S3nDeVT5tFqgL8Nk1QSf1hXhjltObc.TuyFPf5CEIAMrNj1lExz3zZnfQEYBzQoWq7OMU25rEk&dib_tag=se&keywords=robert+ben+mitchell&qid=1739264893&sprefix=robert+ben+mitchel%2Caps%2C73&sr=8-3 sealover wrote: But another vicious feedback wasn't included in any of the 1980s predictions for what could happen to the tundra under global warming. Nobody predicted large scale pyrite oxidation turning the rivers orange. True. trafn did not mention this. Attached file: burstingtheatmosphere_1stedition2014_9.pdf |
| 13-02-2025 21:21 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1925) |
WEATHER OR NOT you call it "CLIMATE", it is CHANGING! Extreme-weather-related disasters keep setting new records. January, 2025 was the hottest January ever recorded. Following 2024, the hottest year ever recorded. The economic reality of climate change has to be addressed. Even if the root cause cannot be acknowledged, for political reasons. It is no coincidence that virtually all scientists have reached the same conclusion. The contrarians do not have any actual "scientists" among their ranks, nor any credible SOURCE of any kind they can cite to support their denialist assertions. Whether it's weather at its extreme as never seen before, or something more. "Weather" or not (you call it "climate"?), that shit is CHANGING in a seriously frightening manner. ---------------------------------------------- Vicious feedbacks influencing magnitude of climate change... One of the more vicious feedbacks aggravating global warming occurs in the tundra. As frozen, buried organic carbon thaws, it becomes available to decompose and release carbon dioxide. HUGE amounts of carbon dioxide. Down along with the buried, frozen organic carbon is trapped methane. HUGE amounts of trapped methane. It gets released upon thawing, and you can torch it off with a cigarette lighter as it is emitted from the ground. The warming atmosphere causes release of greenhouse gases from the tundra. Greenhouse gases released from the tundra cause warming of the atmosphere. But another vicious feedback wasn't included in any of the 1980s predictions for what could happen to the tundra under global warming. Nobody predicted large scale pyrite oxidation turning the rivers orange. "Rivers in Alaska are turning orange. The reason surprised even scientists." This is the title of the story today (May 29, 2024) on CNN, by Fabiana Chaparro. I first saw it about four days ago: "Alaska's rivers are turning orange as thawing permafrost releases metals into waterways." Published May 24, 2024, in Smithsonian Magazine, by Christian Thorsberg. Both these stories are about a report published May 20, 2024: J. O'Donnell, et al. 2024. Metal mobilization from thawing permafrost to aquatic ecosystems is driving rusting of arctic streams. Communications Earth & Environment. (Nature) 5 article 268. The phenomenon was first widely noted in 2018, but satellite imagery confirms it was observable as far back as 2008. This thread includes discussion of carbon dioxide and methane release from thawing permafrost. But the orange rivers aren't about release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Thawing permafrost contains iron pyrite, along with all the toxic elements that get sequestered during pyrite formation. In the frozen state, the pyrite wasn't going anywhere or doing anything. Once thawed and exposed to oxygen, microorganisms oxidize the sulfide and (ferrous) iron(II) contained in the pyrite, to release ferric iron(III) and sulfuric acid. Some of the orange streams have pH as low as 3. As the papers' titles imply, in addition to ferric iron(III), there are far more toxic metals also released in the pyrite oxidation process. The biogeochemistry of climate change is about more than greenhouse gases. Aquatic ecosystems are also impacted in other ways. Acidic orange rivers in Alaska are one example. Depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, and consequent diminishing of bioavailable carbonate ion for shell formation is another example. Regarding the toxic metals identified to be of concern in the orange rivers, I can draw upon my own experience investigating the legacy of an orange river created by mercury mining operations. Microbial oxidation of iron pyrite, as always, was the biggest contributor of sulfuric acid and ferric iron(III) surface water. Ferric iron(III) is only soluble at the acidic pH at the point of origin. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the ferric iron(III) precipitates out as iron floc. Much of the floc can remain suspended in solution and travel for miles with the stream flow. Eventually, it all settles out as hydroxides or oxides of ferric iron(III). Cinnabar is mercury sulfide, and it also oxidized in the mine drainage to generate sulfuric acid and soluble mercury. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the dissolved mercury precipitated out. It co-precipitated with the iron floc, chemically bonded to it. So, the orange rivers in Alaska may carry sediment loads with some toxic metals bonded to iron floc. It would depend on what metals were along with the iron pyrite in the thawing permafrost. All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning 3/4 way down page 5 (Into the Night will not be able to resist the compulsion to take a spam on this) |
| 14-02-2025 00:31 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955) |
sealover wrote: WEATHER OR NOT you call it "CLIMATE", it is CHANGING! Did you mean "Whether or not ..." or was there no pun intended? Whenther or not you call it Climate Change, you still need to define what "it" is. There is no Blumizivush either. sealover wrote:Extreme-weather-related disasters keep setting new records. Nope. The record was set by the great flood when extreme weather killed all life on the planet and caused the waters to prevail 15 cubits. That record has never been approached, much less reached. sealover wrote: January, 2025 was the hottest January ever recorded. You are making a statement about humanity's past ability to record, not about any summer earth might have had. Also, you well know that nobody can compute the temperature for a season. You've always been gullible, haven't you. sealover wrote: Following 2024, the hottest year ever recorded. How was this determined without a valid dataset? sealover wrote: The economic reality of climate change has to be addressed. You have explained exactly why all mention of Climate Change and of Global Warming must be removed from all education curricula and all government documentation. That religion is an economic cancer. sealover wrote: Even if the root cause cannot be acknowledged, There is no cause for any nonexistent effect. sealover wrote: It is no coincidence that virtually all scientists have reached the same conclusion. It is no coincidence that you have deluded yourself into believing that you are virtually all scientists. It's funny that you view yourself as a scientist when you won't unambiguously define your terms. Does your straightjacket match the padding on the walls of your cell? sealover wrote: The contrarians ... This is your euphemism for anyone who is not straightjacketed and in your cell with you. sealover wrote: ... do not have any actual "scientists" among their ranks, You refer to your clergy as "actual scientists." You only know how to speak in euphemisms. Learn some science. By the way, actual chemists know that water evaporates. sealover wrote: Vicious feedbacks influencing magnitude of climate change... Are you trying to see homw many egregious errors you can squeeze into one sentence? You don't even know what a feedback is, do you? You still haven't figured out what the gibberish "global climate" is supposed to mean, how it can possibly change, or what an order of climate magnitude would represent, have you ... at least not that you can express in any semi-plausible and somewhat coherent manner, right? sealover wrote: One of the more vicious feedbacks aggravating global warming occurs in the tundra. Let me guess, it can't be seen by the naked eye, right? sealover wrote: As frozen, buried organic carbon thaws, it becomes available to decompose and release carbon dioxide. HUGE amounts of carbon dioxide. You're late to the ball game. trafn (Robert Ben Mitchell) already tried to hock his book on the matter here on Climate-Debate. He tried selling it on Amazon but you can check his first posts on this site to get a free copy on PDF. Let me see if I can attach it below. https://www.amazon.com/Bursting-Atmosphere-what-happens-falls-ebook/dp/B00P075WQU/ref=sr_1_3?crid=171B9XZL33349&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ZuVcHZFkGkT_hgUhAOh0iIBOar2MUVnUDpoVmfZ-eEWs384pMwtK8fwxzoGBkk9zjxNOplWyoi4wQ4jh9a2Pc64AdyPTOBbmJ-ekBlO_uXIb3XVFct9dmy23SUfODPAfRjsb13Y0yHwV1KTZ-R-IY__TffX9JtOnZM0FDP9lxOqYIdkYtOh86wnMqigJHE2NJQRCcFSOpT7b_S3nDeVT5tFqgL8Nk1QSf1hXhjltObc.TuyFPf5CEIAMrNj1lExz3zZnfQEYBzQoWq7OMU25rEk&dib_tag=se&keywords=robert+ben+mitchell&qid=1739264893&sprefix=robert+ben+mitchel%2Caps%2C73&sr=8-3 sealover wrote: But another vicious feedback wasn't included in any of the 1980s predictions for what could happen to the tundra under global warming. Nobody predicted large scale pyrite oxidation turning the rivers orange. True. trafn did not mention this. |
| 14-02-2025 22:46 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1925) |
Why should any rational adult want to reduce the emission of "cow gas", as methane belched into the atmosphere? Because we want to be able to feed as many people as possible, and we can get a LOT more bang for the buck from our cattle feed if they don't belch methane. Do the math. Cows lose a lot of calories from their diet, as methane gas. Once they belch it, those calories are lost from the cow. Methane combustion could recapture some of those calories if we could catch it somehow, but that isn't too practical. If instead of belching out all those methane calories, our cattle could grow more if they kept those calorie inside, to be digested as part of the microbial biomass in their guts. So, you don't have to give a damn about climate change to endorse the effort to reduce cow gas emissions. You might even accept the loss of those potentially valuable cow gas emissions as an acceptable cost for getting more beef and milk from our cattle feed. ------------ WEATHER OR NOT you call it "CLIMATE", it is CHANGING! Extreme-weather-related disasters keep setting new records. January, 2025 was the hottest January ever recorded. Following 2024, the hottest year ever recorded. The economic reality of climate change has to be addressed. Even if the root cause cannot be acknowledged, for political reasons. It is no coincidence that virtually all scientists have reached the same conclusion. The contrarians do not have any actual "scientists" among their ranks, nor any credible SOURCE of any kind they can cite to support their denialist assertions. Whether it's weather at its extreme as never seen before, or something more. "Weather" or not (you call it "climate"?), that shit is CHANGING in a seriously frightening manner. ---------------------------------------------- Vicious feedbacks influencing magnitude of climate change... One of the more vicious feedbacks aggravating global warming occurs in the tundra. As frozen, buried organic carbon thaws, it becomes available to decompose and release carbon dioxide. HUGE amounts of carbon dioxide. Down along with the buried, frozen organic carbon is trapped methane. HUGE amounts of trapped methane. It gets released upon thawing, and you can torch it off with a cigarette lighter as it is emitted from the ground. The warming atmosphere causes release of greenhouse gases from the tundra. Greenhouse gases released from the tundra cause warming of the atmosphere. But another vicious feedback wasn't included in any of the 1980s predictions for what could happen to the tundra under global warming. Nobody predicted large scale pyrite oxidation turning the rivers orange. "Rivers in Alaska are turning orange. The reason surprised even scientists." This is the title of the story today (May 29, 2024) on CNN, by Fabiana Chaparro. I first saw it about four days ago: "Alaska's rivers are turning orange as thawing permafrost releases metals into waterways." Published May 24, 2024, in Smithsonian Magazine, by Christian Thorsberg. Both these stories are about a report published May 20, 2024: J. O'Donnell, et al. 2024. Metal mobilization from thawing permafrost to aquatic ecosystems is driving rusting of arctic streams. Communications Earth & Environment. (Nature) 5 article 268. The phenomenon was first widely noted in 2018, but satellite imagery confirms it was observable as far back as 2008. This thread includes discussion of carbon dioxide and methane release from thawing permafrost. But the orange rivers aren't about release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Thawing permafrost contains iron pyrite, along with all the toxic elements that get sequestered during pyrite formation. In the frozen state, the pyrite wasn't going anywhere or doing anything. Once thawed and exposed to oxygen, microorganisms oxidize the sulfide and (ferrous) iron(II) contained in the pyrite, to release ferric iron(III) and sulfuric acid. Some of the orange streams have pH as low as 3. As the papers' titles imply, in addition to ferric iron(III), there are far more toxic metals also released in the pyrite oxidation process. The biogeochemistry of climate change is about more than greenhouse gases. Aquatic ecosystems are also impacted in other ways. Acidic orange rivers in Alaska are one example. Depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, and consequent diminishing of bioavailable carbonate ion for shell formation is another example. Regarding the toxic metals identified to be of concern in the orange rivers, I can draw upon my own experience investigating the legacy of an orange river created by mercury mining operations. Microbial oxidation of iron pyrite, as always, was the biggest contributor of sulfuric acid and ferric iron(III) surface water. Ferric iron(III) is only soluble at the acidic pH at the point of origin. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the ferric iron(III) precipitates out as iron floc. Much of the floc can remain suspended in solution and travel for miles with the stream flow. Eventually, it all settles out as hydroxides or oxides of ferric iron(III). Cinnabar is mercury sulfide, and it also oxidized in the mine drainage to generate sulfuric acid and soluble mercury. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the dissolved mercury precipitated out. It co-precipitated with the iron floc, chemically bonded to it. So, the orange rivers in Alaska may carry sediment loads with some toxic metals bonded to iron floc. It would depend on what metals were along with the iron pyrite in the thawing permafrost. All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning 3/4 way down page 5 (Into the Night will not be able to resist the compulsion to take a spam on this)[/quote] |
| 02-03-2025 22:19 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1925) |
"Coffee Prices are Soaring, but Growers Aren't Celebrating", New York Times, February 22, 2025. One adverse impact of climate change has been to cause coffee prices to go up. Another adverse impact of climate change has been to cause coffee farmers and their families to abandon their plantations and take the desperate measures required to make the perilous journey to another place where they can live. "WEATHER" OR NOT (you call it "CLIMATE"?), that shit is CHANGING! Extreme-weather-related disasters keep setting new records. January, 2025 was the hottest January ever recorded. Following 2024, the hottest year ever recorded. The economic reality of climate change has to be addressed. Even if the root cause cannot be acknowledged, for political reasons. It is no coincidence that virtually all scientists have reached the same conclusion. The contrarians do not have any actual "scientists" among their ranks, nor any credible SOURCE of any kind they can cite to support their denialist assertions. Whether it's weather at its extreme as never seen before, or something more. "Weather" or not (you call it "climate"?), that shit is CHANGING in a seriously frightening manner. ---------------------------------------------- Vicious feedbacks influencing magnitude of climate change... One of the more vicious feedbacks aggravating global warming occurs in the tundra. As frozen, buried organic carbon thaws, it becomes available to decompose and release carbon dioxide. HUGE amounts of carbon dioxide. Down along with the buried, frozen organic carbon is trapped methane. HUGE amounts of trapped methane. It gets released upon thawing, and you can torch it off with a cigarette lighter as it is emitted from the ground. The warming atmosphere causes release of greenhouse gases from the tundra. Greenhouse gases released from the tundra cause warming of the atmosphere. But another vicious feedback wasn't included in any of the 1980s predictions for what could happen to the tundra under global warming. Nobody predicted large scale pyrite oxidation turning the rivers orange. "Rivers in Alaska are turning orange. The reason surprised even scientists." This is the title of the story today (May 29, 2024) on CNN, by Fabiana Chaparro. I first saw it about four days ago: "Alaska's rivers are turning orange as thawing permafrost releases metals into waterways." Published May 24, 2024, in Smithsonian Magazine, by Christian Thorsberg. Both these stories are about a report published May 20, 2024: J. O'Donnell, et al. 2024. Metal mobilization from thawing permafrost to aquatic ecosystems is driving rusting of arctic streams. Communications Earth & Environment. (Nature) 5 article 268. The phenomenon was first widely noted in 2018, but satellite imagery confirms it was observable as far back as 2008. This thread includes discussion of carbon dioxide and methane release from thawing permafrost. But the orange rivers aren't about release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Thawing permafrost contains iron pyrite, along with all the toxic elements that get sequestered during pyrite formation. In the frozen state, the pyrite wasn't going anywhere or doing anything. Once thawed and exposed to oxygen, microorganisms oxidize the sulfide and (ferrous) iron(II) contained in the pyrite, to release ferric iron(III) and sulfuric acid. Some of the orange streams have pH as low as 3. As the papers' titles imply, in addition to ferric iron(III), there are far more toxic metals also released in the pyrite oxidation process. The biogeochemistry of climate change is about more than greenhouse gases. Aquatic ecosystems are also impacted in other ways. Acidic orange rivers in Alaska are one example. Depletion of the ocean's alkalinity, and consequent diminishing of bioavailable carbonate ion for shell formation is another example. Regarding the toxic metals identified to be of concern in the orange rivers, I can draw upon my own experience investigating the legacy of an orange river created by mercury mining operations. Microbial oxidation of iron pyrite, as always, was the biggest contributor of sulfuric acid and ferric iron(III) surface water. Ferric iron(III) is only soluble at the acidic pH at the point of origin. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the ferric iron(III) precipitates out as iron floc. Much of the floc can remain suspended in solution and travel for miles with the stream flow. Eventually, it all settles out as hydroxides or oxides of ferric iron(III). Cinnabar is mercury sulfide, and it also oxidized in the mine drainage to generate sulfuric acid and soluble mercury. Upon contact with near neutral pH surface water, the dissolved mercury precipitated out. It co-precipitated with the iron floc, chemically bonded to it. So, the orange rivers in Alaska may carry sediment loads with some toxic metals bonded to iron floc. It would depend on what metals were along with the iron pyrite in the thawing permafrost. All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning 3/4 way down page 5 |
| 03-03-2025 18:42 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22991) |
Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Coffee prices go up because of inflation. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: What 'weather related disasters setting new records'???? Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change, Robert. Im a BM wrote: There is no 'root cause'. Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: You are ignoring theories of science. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: You are denying theories of science. You can't blame your problem on others. Im a BM wrote: It is not. There have always been hot days, cold days, tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms, floods, etc. Im a BM wrote: No, it isn't. Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. No Magick Feedback. Im a BM wrote: No Magick Feedback. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: The tundra thaws every summer, Robert. Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. The melting point of carbon is 6420 deg F. Im a BM wrote: Methane isn't trapped. Im a BM wrote: Methane isn't trapped. The freezing point of methane is -265 deg F.. Im a BM wrote: No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM wrote: No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM wrote: No Magick Feedback. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Some Alaskan rivers have always been orange. Im a BM wrote: No one is surprised (except, apparently, YOU). You are not a scientist. You deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM wrote: Pyrite is not particularly toxic. Im a BM wrote: The melting point of pyrite is 1888 deg F. Im a BM wrote: You don't understand what pH is or even how to measure it. Im a BM wrote: Iron isn't toxic. Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM wrote: Aquatic is not an 'ecosystem'. Im a BM wrote: Alkalinity is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. [b]Im a BM wrote: Iron is not an acid. Im a BM wrote: Iron oxide is not an acid. Rust is common, Robert. Im a BM wrote: The permafrost surface melts every year, Robert. It's called 'summer'. Im a BM wrote: You aren't relevant. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-03-2025 22:36 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1925) |
METHANE CLATHRATES A quote from Google: "Methane clathrates, also known as methane hydrates, are solid compounds that trap methane in a crystal structure of water. They are found in polar permafrost and under the ocean floor." Where tundra meets the sea on the continental shelf of the Artic Ocean, there are gigatons of methane clathrate just beneath the warming surface. Methane clathrates couldn't care less about Into the Night's trivial point that "the freezing point of methane is -265 deg F." Solid methane clathrates become unstable near the freezing point of WATER. "Permafrost" means that part of the subsoil that NEVER thaws, until recently. Similarly, pyrite oxidation by bacteria couldn't care less if "the melting point of pyrite is 1888 deg F." It only cares that oxygen be available while water is in LIQUID form. Pyrite oxidation in tundra subsoil only requires WATER to melt. But thank you for sharing that most valuable information about the physical properties of methane and pyrite! Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: |
| 06-03-2025 02:19 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22991) |
Im a BM wrote: No such chemical, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Chemistry isn't Google, Robert. Im a BM wrote: No such chemical. Im a BM wrote: No such chemical. Im a BM wrote: No such chemical. Pivot fallacy. Im a BM wrote: No such chemical. Im a BM wrote: Wrong. The surface of permafrost melts every summer, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Oxidation isn't melting. The melting point of pyrite is 1958 deg F. Im a BM wrote: Yet you denied it, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-03-2025 03:53 | |
Swan ★★★★★(6352) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Do you feel butter now? IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?  Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy  Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
| 06-03-2025 23:58 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1925) |
Swan wrote:Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: See? Even SWAN understands that there really IS SUCH A THING as methane clathrates. The unsupported contrarian assertion that "there is no such thing as 'methane clathrate'" is a CONFESSION OF SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY. Not every chemist in the world knows exactly what methane clathrates are, but it has to be at least 95% of them. No actual "chemist" anywhere in the world would assert that "There is no such methane clathrate". They would at least know how to open a textbook or do a simple Google search before going ahead and making a very STUPID assertion. Especially if the assertion is being made in order to tell a highly respected, published and widely-cited, PhD chemist that they are WRONG to assert anything about the behavior of methane clathrates in tundra subsoil. Methane clathrates are real. They are solid at temperatures hundreds of degrees above the freezing point of methane gas. And as the ice matrix that binds the clathrates begins to melt away, they release methane gas to the atmosphere. If you want to deny that methane behaves as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, I defend your right to hold your own opinion about the implications of thermodynamics. If you want to make all that methane clathrate go away by refusing to acknowledge that it even exists, I do NOT defend your right to troll. |
| 08-03-2025 21:20 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22991) |
Im a BM wrote: See what, Robert??? Im a BM wrote: He never said any such thing, Robert. Mantra 30a. Im a BM wrote: Science is not meaningless buzzwords, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Not a chemical. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Science is not Google. Science is not a book. Im a BM wrote: No such chemical. Im a BM wrote: Not a chemical. Ice is not methane. Im a BM wrote: The laws of thermodynamics are not a opinion. They are theories of science. You just want to discard them. Im a BM wrote: Not a chemical. Buzzword fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-03-2025 18:09 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1925) |
Three years ago today, on my third day of posting, gfm7175 offered these genius observations: "It is not possible to measure global CO2 to any useful accuracy." BULLSHIT! Yes, it is possible to measure the concentration of CO2 in the air, to a high degree of "useful accuracy". It has been done millions of times. I have operated highly accurate CO2 monitors myself, so I know it is possible. Yes, we DO use "fossils" for fuel. SOME of them are hydrocarbons. Coal is not. I guess if you want to get technical enough, petrified wood is the only true "fossil fuel" on Earth. It cannot burn, as it no longer contains any organic carbon. But petrified wood USED to be "fuel" and now it is a "fossil". Because science is just a word game. If we start calling fossil fuel "hydrocarbons", we leave out coal and include vegetable oil instead. "Define climate change." At least that is an improvement over "There is no such thing as climate change." Yes, there IS such a thing as climate change. gfm7175 wrote: We do not use fossils for fuel, as fossils don't burn very well... We use hydrocarbons instead. It is not possible to measure global CO2 content to any useful accuracy. Define "vicious feedbacks". Define "climate change".[/quote] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whatever word one wishes to use to call it, there is carbon-based material that humans have been extracting from the earth to use as fuel for combustion. Most people don't have any trouble getting their heads around that one. Trust your intuition on the most likely meaning of "vicious feedback". Figure that when someone uses such a widely used term as "climate change", there is probably a common understanding what it is most likely to mean. A person could go crazy trying to preemptively exclude every nuance. A person could become isolated using a dictionary that they alone adhere to. It's easier to communicate using a common language. Words mean what they mean. Get over it. |
| 11-03-2025 20:21 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22991) |
Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2, Robert. Im a BM wrote: It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2, Robert. Im a BM wrote: There is no 'accuracy'. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. Im a BM wrote: It has never been done. Im a BM wrote: Fossils are not used for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Im a BM wrote: Fossils are not hydrocarbons. Im a BM wrote: No one said it was. Im a BM wrote: Fossils don't burn, Robert. They are not used as fuel. Im a BM wrote: Carbon is not organic. Im a BM wrote: It doesn't burn. Im a BM wrote: Science is not a word game. Im a BM wrote: Fossils are not hydrocarbons. Im a BM wrote: Coal is not vegetable oil. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: So? Im a BM wrote: Apparently YOU do though! Im a BM wrote: Buzzword fallacy. This phrase has no meaning. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: There is no 'nuance'. Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: No dictionary defines any word, Robert. Im a BM wrote: So when are you going to use common language and give up your numerous buzzwords, Robert? Im a BM wrote: You don't know what many words mean. Im a BM wrote: It is YOUR problem, Robert. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else! Inversion fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 19-03-2025 01:50 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1925) |
METHANE CLATHRATES - Solid Methane on Ice A quote from Google: "Methane clathrates, also known as methane hydrates, are solid compounds that trap methane in a crystal structure of water. They are found in polar permafrost and under the ocean floor." Where tundra meets the sea on the continental shelf of the Artic Ocean, there are gigatons of methane clathrate just beneath the warming surface. Methane clathrates couldn't care less about Into the Night's trivial point that "the freezing point of methane is -265 deg F." Solid methane clathrates become unstable near the freezing point of WATER. "Permafrost" means that part of the subsoil that NEVER thaws, until recently. Similarly, pyrite oxidation by bacteria couldn't care less if "the melting point of pyrite is 1888 deg F." It only cares that oxygen be available while water is in LIQUID form. Pyrite oxidation in tundra subsoil only requires WATER to melt. But thank you for sharing that most valuable information about the physical properties of methane and pyrite! Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: |
| 20-03-2025 01:35 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1925) |
FUN FACT - On February 8, 2020, Tomasz Dabski created the following: Climate denialists filter for Climate-debate.com On the greasyfork.org website, Tomasz offer this filter for installation. Blocks posts of offensive climate deniers on forum Climate-debate.com So claims the ad for the filter. Tomasz saw an opportunity for a niche market. Were there still so many tree huggers here in the beginning of 2020 that Tomasz hoped they would want to install his filter? By the time I got here, only two of the most recently active 100 threads even pretended to discuss climate. It looks like there were zero installs of Tomasz's filter. Hey, it's probably still available. At greasyfork.org just type in "climate-debate.com" in the search box. ----------------------------- METHANE CLATHRATES - Solid Methane on Ice A quote from Google: "Methane clathrates, also known as methane hydrates, are solid compounds that trap methane in a crystal structure of water. They are found in polar permafrost and under the ocean floor." Where tundra meets the sea on the continental shelf of the Artic Ocean, there are gigatons of methane clathrate just beneath the warming surface. Methane clathrates couldn't care less about Into the Night's trivial point that "the freezing point of methane is -265 deg F." Solid methane clathrates become unstable near the freezing point of WATER. "Permafrost" means that part of the subsoil that NEVER thaws, until recently. Similarly, pyrite oxidation by bacteria couldn't care less if "the melting point of pyrite is 1888 deg F." It only cares that oxygen be available while water is in LIQUID form. Pyrite oxidation in tundra subsoil only requires WATER to melt. But thank you for sharing that most valuable information about the physical properties of methane and pyrite! Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: |
| 20-03-2025 09:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (22991) |
Im a BM wrote: Google is not God. Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Hey gfm7175 - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare | 32 | 10-04-2024 08:23 |
| Second case of top-secret Biden documents found stored at Staples near the printer | 0 | 12-01-2023 01:46 |
| The Case Of Jesus vs Gautama Buddha Is Giving Some Hint About The Correct Evolution Way | 0 | 22-07-2021 07:31 |
| Another Trump Election Fraud Case Thrown Out | 61 | 09-12-2020 20:12 |
| This is a much bigger issue than a case of mere fraud | 36 | 27-11-2020 23:07 |