![]() | A little humor and an open thread | The Oil Drum | From an Insider: Rig Prices, Rig Depth, and How to Get a Job | ![]() |
107 comments on Senate Foreign Relations Cmte: "The Hidden Cost of Oil"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
107 comments on Senate Foreign Relations Cmte: "The Hidden Cost of Oil"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.”
—Claire Huchet Bishop
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Trying to figure the global environmental cost of carbon, then trying to figure how to make the consumer pay for it will be an impossible task-- too many unpredictable variables in nature.
For example, consider this info taken from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice
"When ice melts, it absorbs as much heat energy (the heat of fusion) as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C, while its temperature remains a constant 0 °C."
Now I am no scientist, but this suggests to me that the global ice is a tremendous global warming buffer--can absorb unbelievable amounts of heat without exhibiting any visible change. The melting and shrinking we see now is just the proverbial 'tip of the iceberg'.
Just imagine if Antartica's gigatons of ice have absorbed the equivalent of 75 degrees of global warming over the last two hundred years resulting in the net effect of the one degree rise in global temperature increase we have seen so far. Once the ice's heat absorbsion reaches 80 degrees, then a tipping point is reached where any more global warming starts to vastly accelerate the water phase transition [ice to water] releasing huge icebergs, glacial flows, and monstrous jokulaups.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Respectfully disagree. The absorbed energy is unseen, increased atomic vibration. Only when the ice has absorbed the required total energy is when it melts. Unmelted ice has a thermal conductivity coefficient too, as linked here:
http://tinyurl.com/lkwrg
The colder the ice: the faster it absorbs heat. It is all very complex, way above my limited understanding. Ongoing research is trying to get a better handle on this:
http://www.usap.gov/scienceSupport/sciencePlanningSummaries/2003_2004/indiv_projs/O253.htm
I assume supercomputer modeling is required to adjust for all the inter-related physical effects of solar radiation, albedo reflectivity, air & water thermal currents, snow insulation, glacial flow rates, etc.... on & on & on.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
You are more or less correct, but perhaps misunderstanding the process a bit. True, water does have a comparatively high heat of fusion and therefore quite a bit of heat must be absorbed before ice will melt.
However, once the ice is melted, the heat that has been absorbed doesn't really go anywhere, as it just resides as the free energy of water's liquid phase. In other words, liquid water has greater free energy than solid water (just as steam has a higher free energy than liquid water). When the liquid water freezes again, that phase free energy (or heat of fusion) must then be removed. So, the freeze/thaw process is fully reversible, with energy being added in on one case, and removed in the other.
But you are generally correct if what you are driving at is that the earth's huge inventory of ice is a vast heat sink. The smaller that heat sink becomes, the less damping effect it will have on atmospheric and oceanic temperature changes. The trick is figuring out how important this factor is in the whole global warming picture.
Your last paragraph is a better and more concise wording of what I was trying to express--Thxs
I have been trying to google more info on this phenomenon, to get a better handle on just how close we are to an ever-increasing number of cascading inflection points, but it is frustrating because many technical reports are behind paywalls. Makes one wonder if the critical data is top secret-- that would explain why the milgov is trying to muzzle James Hansen and other scientists. Who knows?
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Addendum re ice melting:
One thing I perhaps wasn't too clear on is that as you start adding heat to ice, it will gradually and very linearly starting increasing in temperature all the way up the melting point of 32 degrees F.
But then something odd happens: the temperature stops climbing and becomes sort of stuck at 32 degrees for a period of time. The reason is that this is the phase change point, where the solid water absorbs heat to become liquid water.
However, when the ice does finally melt, it does not suddenly release energy and steeply rise in temperature. No, the water from the freshly melted ice is but a fraction of a degree over 32 degrees. Thus, you can have both water and ice at 32 degrees: it just depends on which direction you're coming from.
Of course once the ice has melted, if heat is still being applied, the liquid water will continue aborbing heat and gaining in temperature in a very linear fashion, until you reach the boiling point, at which time the same sort of pause in temperature rise occurs, as the liquid water absorbs enough heat to cause vaporization (i.e., the 'heat of vaporization').
I am certainly not one to let the chance for a monstrous joke elapse without making it!