NYT: Alaska's Permafrost is Not So Perma

Grand Mal said:

Do you think Greenland was ice free when Eric the Red landed there? So, maybe Iceland was covered with glaciers then.
Greenland does have a summer, and south coastal areas (where Eric would have landed) were green in season. And, you couldn't attract many settlers if you called your new found land "Glacier". Guess what Leif, Eric's son, called Newfoundland?

Click to expand...

The point was that climate changes, and areas that were once inhospitable to humans are not so now, and vice versa. The larger portion of North America was covered in glaciers at one time. There are remnants of volcanoes right here in Virginia. The idea that the earth should remain as it is from a climate perspective discounts history. In historic terms, there is no stasis when it comes to the earth's climate and geology. I'd add a little more, but some folks here would be terribly insulted, and be forced to call me names. I hate it when that happens.

Visbek said:

:roll:

No one is saying that every single effect of climate change is mapped out, perfectly, for the next 5000 years. There is still lots of need for research in a variety of ways. Rather, we know that the climate is warming; we see that it's starting to have an effect; we see how it causes feedback loops, which will result in a much more rapid acceleration of effects.

Click to expand...

Yep. We do know that things have warmed up a bit since the last cool period. The rapid acceleration of effects, while theoretically plausible, has not been sufficient enough to discount other factors - some of which are likely not known and therefore unappreciated. Climate is incredibly complicated, and the notion that after a very brief span of existence, climate science has advanced enough to make declaratory predictions of the magnitude offered is the problem. And I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't have an effect. I'm saying thus far the effect appears to be minimal, and not outside that which historically has already demonstrated to be within the norm for this planet over some millennia now.

humbolt said:

The point was that climate changes, and areas that were once inhospitable to humans are not so now, and vice versa. The larger portion of North America was covered in glaciers at one time. There are remnants of volcanoes right here in Virginia. The idea that the earth should remain as it is from a climate perspective discounts history. In historic terms, there is no stasis when it comes to the earth's climate and geology. I'd add a little more, but some folks here would be terribly insulted, and be forced to call me names. I hate it when that happens.

Click to expand...

Okay. Climate does change, sometimes drastically. Over hundreds of years, which is a moment in the historical terms we're going to talk about.
Way back when, the Earth was much warmer than it is today. Dinosaurs, huge plants, the surface of the planet was covered in lush growth. There's nowhere that we've looked that doesn't verify that. All that lush growth over thousands of years drew hundreds of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. Thousands of tons, if you can believe there was thousands of tons of anything in the atmosphere. Anyway, between that and several other factors the globe cooled, cooled to the extent that sometimes some of it was covered with glaciers. Now here we are digging up that carbon or pumping it out and returning it to the atmosphere.
Question is, is that a bad thing? Obviously it's hubris to say we're harming the planet- we're kidding ourselves if we say we're capable of that. Worst we can do is make it uncomfortable for ourselves. But the question is, is AGM a bad thing? Maybe it's just us doing what we were evolved to do.

Grand Mal said:

Okay. Climate does change, sometimes drastically. Over hundreds of years, which is a moment in the historical terms we're going to talk about.
Way back when, the Earth was much warmer than it is today. Dinosaurs, huge plants, the surface of the planet was covered in lush growth. There's nowhere that we've looked that doesn't verify that. All that lush growth over thousands of years drew hundreds of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. Thousands of tons, if you can believe there was thousands of tons of anything in the atmosphere. Anyway, between that and several other factors the globe cooled, cooled to the extent that sometimes some of it was covered with glaciers. Now here we are digging up that carbon or pumping it out and returning it to the atmosphere.
Question is, is that a bad thing? Obviously it's hubris to say we're harming the planet- we're kidding ourselves if we say we're capable of that. Worst we can do is make it uncomfortable for ourselves. But the question is, is AGM a bad thing? Maybe it's just us doing what we were evolved to do.

Click to expand...

Thoughtful people agree that reduced CO2 emissions and the pollutants that are generally associated with burning fossil fuels would be beneficial. It's a worthy objective. In the meantime - until such energy production is realized - we're stuck with the fuels we have. With 7 billion people to support, we are obligated to use what we have until a practical and affordable alternative is found. To the "What about Miami under water?" crowd, we can always build a new Miami. I doubt Miami would be under water because of our actions alone, and I seriously doubt AGW would be a significant contributor to that end.

In as much as the study of any element of climate can spur increased research and development of plentiful, affordable, and non-polluting energy sources, I'm all in. The adopted political action of the AGW crowd is most disconcerting, and does far greater harm than good to the effort I mention above.

Visbek said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...tml?rref=collection/sectioncollection/climate

Alaska's permafrost is melting. Huge swaths may be melted by 2050. The permafrost has stored decomposed organic materials for thousands of years, and melting permafrost may release more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Not to mention that these changes will impact the local wildlife and residents, including destabilizing roads and buildings built on permafrost.

There is quite a bit of room for debate here, including potential gaps in data, how fast it may be melting, and which gases will be released. But it is likely Alaska will change from being a carbon sink to a carbon source.

Raise your hand if you're surprised.

Click to expand...

New paper debunks the “Permafrost Bomb”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures. The abstract from the paper; Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate…

April 10, 2015 in Climate News.

A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures.
The abstract from the paper;
Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change, but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.
Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html
Unfortunately the main paper is paywalled, but I think we get the general idea. And unless the climate starts to warm again, we won’t even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper.
For the last few years, alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare, with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes, but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the “permafrost bomb” will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.

Visbek said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...tml?rref=collection/sectioncollection/climate

Alaska's permafrost is melting. Huge swaths may be melted by 2050. The permafrost has stored decomposed organic materials for thousands of years, and melting permafrost may release more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Not to mention that these changes will impact the local wildlife and residents, including destabilizing roads and buildings built on permafrost.

There is quite a bit of room for debate here, including potential gaps in data, how fast it may be melting, and which gases will be released. But it is likely Alaska will change from being a carbon sink to a carbon source.

Raise your hand if you're surprised.

Click to expand...

This isn't new. It has been melting for a couple of decades now. It's not just an issue in Alaska either. High altitude permafrost in the Central and Northern Rockies is undergoing the same fate.

Lord of Planar said:

By 2050, how much more wildlife will we effect by growing out metropolitan boundaries?

Life happens...

Click to expand...

Urban growth is not the biggest threat to wilderness protection. In fact, all things being equal, from an ecological perspective it is far better to have human populations concentrated in urban areas than to have them spread out all over the landscape.

Jack Hays said:

New paper debunks the “Permafrost Bomb”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures. The abstract from the paper; Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate…

April 10, 2015 in Climate News.

A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures.
The abstract from the paper;
Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change, but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.
Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html
Unfortunately the main paper is paywalled, but I think we get the general idea. And unless the climate starts to warm again, we won’t even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper.
For the last few years, alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare, with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes, but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the “permafrost bomb” will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.

​

​

Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, older estimates of the stored carbon were 1,700 GtC and has been revised to 1,035 GtC.

humbolt said:

It's so dire now the IPCC has determined that money must be forcibly extracted through political action. That will cure everything. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yep, their plan is to just steal your money, put it in a big pile, and light it on fire. Yep, that's a fair description of the plan and you're a totally honest poster.

Jack Hays said:

New paper debunks the “Permafrost Bomb”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures. The abstract from the paper; Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate…

April 10, 2015 in Climate News.

A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures.
The abstract from the paper;
Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change, but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.
Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html
Unfortunately the main paper is paywalled, but I think we get the general idea. And unless the climate starts to warm again, we won’t even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper.
For the last few years, alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare, with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes, but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the “permafrost bomb” will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.

​

​

Click to expand...

Man, literally any paper that suggests something in favor of your partisan ideology, you immediately jump on with this hyperbole. "Debunks," "disproves," etc. As if one paper on any subject could ever do that.

humbolt said:

Yep. We do know that things have warmed up a bit since the last cool period. The rapid acceleration of effects, while theoretically plausible, has not been sufficient enough to discount other factors - some of which are likely not known and therefore unappreciated. Climate is incredibly complicated, and the notion that after a very brief span of existence, climate science has advanced enough to make declaratory predictions of the magnitude offered is the problem.

Click to expand...

Oh, really? By that logic:

• We shouldn't be able to fight cancer or diabetes (after all, the body is incredibly complex, and medicine is new)

• We can't possibly understand anything about the solar system, or galaxies, or the Big Bang (complex subject, new discoveries)

• Quantum mechanics is a lost cause altogether (same same)

And yet, we can develop treatments for cancer and diabetes; can learn about the planets and stars and cosmic structures; and QM is considered one of the most successful physical theories in human history.

I.e. your argument is unjustifiably selective and lacks supporting evidence. We are obviously more than capable of understanding and predicting outcomes for fields vastly equally (if not more) complex than climate. We've also seen lots of accurate predictions, and solid understandings of how climate works. While there certainly is more data to be gathered and always more to learn, climate science is more than well developed enough to make reasonable predictions of the effects of human activity on the climate and environment.

And I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't have an effect. I'm saying thus far the effect appears to be minimal, and not outside that which historically has already demonstrated to be within the norm for this planet over some millennia now.

Click to expand...

Not so much.

The effects we've seen so far are small -- but that doesn't mean or prove that they will continue to be small. Again, there are a variety of feedback loops now in play, some of which we've known about for some time (e.g. melting permafrost exposes organic material that can break down into CO2) and some which are relatively new (e.g. melting glacial ice is exposing ice that contains more dust and soot, which in turn absorbs more heat, which in turn causes glacial ice to melt faster).

It's also obvious that we are well outside of historical or natural norms. We're heading for global temperature averages that the planet hasn't seen in thousands of years, which have shot up at a rate which is pretty much unprecedented.



That, along with the potential to vastly increase the amount of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere (as the number of people, energy use, industrial production etc grows with population), makes it virtually certain that if we don't make some changes real quick, then the impacts are going to get much more severe in just a few decades.

Tony Abbott: Daring to Doubt

Posted on 10 Oct 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 2 Comments
Tony Abbott, former PM of Australia, gave the annual GWPF lecture last night. The full text is on their site and Josh’s cartoon can be found at Bishop Hill. He started with some general remarks about world politics and loss of trust in leaders before moving on to some climate-sceptic points. He acknowledged the role … Continue reading →

Tony Abbott, former PM of Australia, gave the annual GWPF lecture last night. The full text is on their site and Josh’s cartoon can be found at Bishop Hill.

He started with some general remarks about world politics and loss of trust in leaders before moving on to some climate-sceptic points. He acknowledged the role of carbon dioxidebut despite this was labelled a “full-bore climate denier” by one of the idiots at ClimateHome. He talked a little about extreme events:and the potential benefits of warming:Here, of course, he is in line with the early proponents of global warming, such as Arrhenius and Callendar, in the days before climate science got taken over by political activism.
But most of the talk was on climate policy, with particular reference to Australia, and the problems of renewables and the subsidies they require.
These are not new ideas of course, but I did like his introduction of “Ridley’s Paradox”:

humbolt said:

Yep, there certainly is. It starts with the frequent use of the word "may". And here I thought all of this was settled science.

Click to expand...

It is settled!!1! It definitely might possibly one day melt... ish.

humbolt said:

Thoughtful people agree that reduced CO2 emissions and the pollutants that are generally associated with burning fossil fuels would be beneficial. It's a worthy objective. In the meantime - until such energy production is realized - we're stuck with the fuels we have.

Click to expand...

Not so much.

Energy generation has undergone major changes, in a relatively short period of time. We use more natural gas, less coal, and less oil than just a few years ago. Prices for sustainable and renewable energy are falling through the floor. Technologies like solar or wind are actually advantageous for developing nations, if for no other reason than it can put power right where isolated people live, meaning we don't need to build a complex and vulnerable grid to support small villages or towns in the middle of nowhere. Electric cars are gradually becoming more viable. There should be no question that advanced societies can improve energy efficiency, including just buying Less Stuff that we don't need.

There should be no doubt that if we put more resources and effort to it, we can make a big dent in emissions in a surprisingly short period of time.

To the "What about Miami under water?" crowd, we can always build a new Miami.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's not bat**** crazy

Hello? Miami-Dade is home to over 2 million people. Where are they going to go? How are we going to compel them to move? How do we stop people from wanting to live near or on a coast?

You do understand that pretty much every coastal community will be impacted by sea level rise, right? What are we going to do, relocate New York City 50 miles inland?

Worse yet, while coasts will be impacted more than other areas, nowhere will be untouched. There will be more droughts, which also means more wildfires out west, and lower crop yields. Storms will be more intense, causing flooding all over the US. The list goes on.

I doubt Miami would be under water because of our actions alone, and I seriously doubt AGW would be a significant contributor to that end.

Click to expand...

Most of Miami's flood issues are, yeah, due to human activity. This includes sea level rise due to global warming, as well as the destruction of wetlands that normally soak up excess water.

In as much as the study of any element of climate can spur increased research and development of plentiful, affordable, and non-polluting energy sources, I'm all in. The adopted political action of the AGW crowd is most disconcerting, and does far greater harm than good to the effort I mention above.

Click to expand...

Uh huh

So what, exactly, should someone who understands that human activity is impacting the climate do, exactly? This should be fascinating....

Deuce said:

Yep, their plan is to just steal your money, put it in a big pile, and light it on fire. Yep, that's a fair description of the plan and you're a totally honest poster.

Click to expand...

Yep, and you're full of **** too, but you already know that.

Cool, we might find some more relics left by the early inhabitants.

Visbek said:

Oh, really?

Click to expand...

Yes, really.

By that logic:

• We shouldn't be able to fight cancer or diabetes (after all, the body is incredibly complex, and medicine is new)

• We can't possibly understand anything about the solar system, or galaxies, or the Big Bang (complex subject, new discoveries)

• Quantum mechanics is a lost cause altogether (same same)

And yet, we can develop treatments for cancer and diabetes; can learn about the planets and stars and cosmic structures; and QM is considered one of the most successful physical theories in human history.

I.e. your argument is unjustifiably selective and lacks supporting evidence. We are obviously more than capable of understanding and predicting outcomes for fields vastly equally (if not more) complex than climate. We've also seen lots of accurate predictions, and solid understandings of how climate works. While there certainly is more data to be gathered and always more to learn, climate science is more than well developed enough to make reasonable predictions of the effects of human activity on the climate and environment.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's not valid comparison. Medical science and the other disciplines you mention have been around a whole lot longer than climate science, and I note that none of them require a political arm in the form of the IPCC to promote their views as does climate science.

Not so much.

The effects we've seen so far are small -- but that doesn't mean or prove that they will continue to be small.

Click to expand...

Yes, small. In some cases so small as to not be seen. And I would also note that it doesn't mean they will grow, either.

Again, there are a variety of feedback loops now in play, some of which we've known about for some time (e.g. melting permafrost exposes organic material that can break down into CO2) and some which are relatively new (e.g. melting glacial ice is exposing ice that contains more dust and soot, which in turn absorbs more heat, which in turn causes glacial ice to melt faster).

Click to expand...

There are, and some which are routinely ignored in spite of evidence they play a far larger role in climate than CO2.

It's also obvious that we are well outside of historical or natural norms. We're heading for global temperature averages that the planet hasn't seen in thousands of years, which have shot up at a rate which is pretty much unprecedented.

Click to expand...

No. That simply isn't true, as you admitted above with "the effects we've seen so far are small..."

That, along with the potential to vastly increase the amount of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere (as the number of people, energy use, industrial production etc grows with population), makes it virtually certain that if we don't make some changes real quick, then the impacts are going to get much more severe in just a few decades.

Click to expand...

Nice graph.

Visbek said:

Not so much.

Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much. When you go out tomorrow morning and start your car, remember where the energy comes from that makes it run. Until you can say without a doubt that fossil fuels are not the original source, whether it's electric or some kind of internal combustion engine, we're still stuck with fossil fuels. The same applies to flight and the vast majority of public transportation.

Energy generation has undergone major changes, in a relatively short period of time. We use more natural gas, less coal, and less oil than just a few years ago. Prices for sustainable and renewable energy are falling through the floor. Technologies like solar or wind are actually advantageous for developing nations, if for no other reason than it can put power right where isolated people live, meaning we don't need to build a complex and vulnerable grid to support small villages or towns in the middle of nowhere. Electric cars are gradually becoming more viable. There should be no question that advanced societies can improve energy efficiency, including just buying Less Stuff that we don't need.

There should be no doubt that if we put more resources and effort to it, we can make a big dent in emissions in a surprisingly short period of time.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Yeah that's not bat**** crazy

Click to expand...

Nope, and it's has happened before and likely will again.

Hello? Miami-Dade is home to over 2 million people. Where are they going to go? How are we going to compel them to move? How do we stop people from wanting to live near or on a coast?

You do understand that pretty much every coastal community will be impacted by sea level rise, right? What are we going to do, relocate New York City 50 miles inland?

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, that's exactly what I expect. Nothing crazy at all about it. You seem to think the water would rise all at once tomorrow, and that definitely is bat **** crazy. Look, anybody can figure out that if and when sea levels rise, you move back from it. No genius is required. Otherwise you can put up a stop sign and hope for the best.

Worse yet, while coasts will be impacted more than other areas, nowhere will be untouched. There will be more droughts, which also means more wildfires out west, and lower crop yields. Storms will be more intense, causing flooding all over the US. The list goes on.

Click to expand...

That is pure fear-mongering.

Most of Miami's flood issues are, yeah, due to human activity. This includes sea level rise due to global warming, as well as the destruction of wetlands that normally soak up excess water.

Click to expand...

When you build near water flooding is nearly always a persistent issue. I haven't noticed any precipitous sea level rise as yet.

Uh huh

So what, exactly, should someone who understands that human activity is impacting the climate do, exactly? This should be fascinating....

Click to expand...

I never said I attribute climate changes to human activity. I said I would promote research into renewable and affordable energy sources that are non-polluting. The hair on fire world is ending thing is your schtick, not mine.

humbolt said:

Yes, pretty much. When you go out tomorrow morning and start your car, remember where the energy comes from that makes it run.

Click to expand...

I use public transport and bicycles most of the time. :mrgreen:

I agree that we aren't going to junk gas engines any time soon. However, EVs are a good option, particularly when coupled with low-emission or renewable power supplies. We could also invest more in public transportation and bicycle infrastructure, especially in larger cities.

I.e. there is a lot more we can do to aggressively to reduce emissions, without causing any problems for the economy or our quality of life.

Nope, and it's has happened before and likely will again.

Click to expand...

When did an entire metro area of 2+ million people up and move, to avoid flooding?

Heck, we can't even convince people to move off of barrier islands that get flooded out in major storms.

Ah, yes, that's exactly what I expect. Nothing crazy at all about it. You seem to think the water would rise all at once tomorrow, and that definitely is bat **** crazy. Look, anybody can figure out that if and when sea levels rise, you move back from it. No genius is required. Otherwise you can put up a stop sign and hope for the best.

Click to expand...

I certainly never said, nor implied, that all of Miami was going to become uninhabitable next week.

Rather, it's an awareness that Miami is already experiencing serious flood issues, including "sunny day" floods/

It's also an understanding that Miami is not built on a subtle grade, where the city will go back to the sea on a block-by-block basis. What will happen is that in a storm with a big surge, huge swaths of Miami will be underwater. It won't just be the blocks right next to the coast that have issues.

And again... Where will people go? Who will pay to relocate them? How will you stop people who insist on living on barrier islands and beach homes? It is easy to say "oh you can just move." It's not easy to actually convince people to move.

That is pure fear-mongering.

Click to expand...

I wish that was the case, but...

There is no question that the impacts of climate change will be global. Sea level rise; ocean acidification; impacts on sea life; we're already losing huge chunks of coral; storms all over the globe are likely to be more intense; weather in general will be more extreme, in particular with more heat waves; storms will be able to dump more rain, because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere; arable land will be lost, while areas closer to the poles will not become more suitable for farming. The one potential benefit (more fertilization via atmospheric CO2) will not be anywhere near enough to offset the other negative effects.

Again, this is not going to happen overnight. It's going to take decades. But if we don't change our actions, it's going to happen, and sooner rather than later.

When you build near water flooding is nearly always a persistent issue. I have noticed any precipitous sea level rise as yet.

Click to expand...

It's hard to notice, because it's gradual (by our standards) and is partially offset by larger geological changes. However, it's also accelerating. The sea level rose on average about 5" in the 20th Century, and could rise as much as 12" by 2100.

We've already started to see some of the effects with storms like Sandy, in the Maldives, in other coastal areas.

I never said I attribute climate changes to human activity. I said I would promote research into renewable and affordable energy sources that are non-polluting. The hair on fire world is ending thing is your schtick, not mine.

Click to expand...

OK, let me try this again.

There is really no reason to doubt that human activity is having a huge impact on the environment, including significantly raising temperatures well in excess of any natural causes. The scientific evidence is as solid as for pretty much any other scientific theory, including quantum mechanics and relativity. The methods of conducting research are the same as in other fields of science. Climate change is no more a political issue than cancer, or heart disease, or the mass of an electron. The political aspect ought to be "how do we deal with this?"

Anyway. The tactics of those who accept CC are the same as with any other issue -- ranging from discussing facts, to illustrating effects using anecdotes, to peaceful protests around the world, to politicians taking action to encourage nations to work together to combat human activity, and more. People are doing pretty much everything they can. You claim, however, that these tactics are counter-productive. That's pretty much like saying that "our entire basis for dealing with conflicting ideas is counter-productive." Better yet, you offer no alternative methods for getting the word out. Seems a bit disingenuous to me....

Visbek said:

I use public transport and bicycles most of the time. :mrgreen:

I agree that we aren't going to junk gas engines any time soon. However, EVs are a good option, particularly when coupled with low-emission or renewable power supplies. We could also invest more in public transportation and bicycle infrastructure, especially in larger cities.

I.e. there is a lot more we can do to aggressively to reduce emissions, without causing any problems for the economy or our quality of life.



When did an entire metro area of 2+ million people up and move, to avoid flooding?

Heck, we can't even convince people to move off of barrier islands that get flooded out in major storms.



I certainly never said, nor implied, that all of Miami was going to become uninhabitable next week.

Rather, it's an awareness that Miami is already experiencing serious flood issues, including "sunny day" floods/

It's also an understanding that Miami is not built on a subtle grade, where the city will go back to the sea on a block-by-block basis. What will happen is that in a storm with a big surge, huge swaths of Miami will be underwater. It won't just be the blocks right next to the coast that have issues.

And again... Where will people go? Who will pay to relocate them? How will you stop people who insist on living on barrier islands and beach homes? It is easy to say "oh you can just move." It's not easy to actually convince people to move.



I wish that was the case, but...

There is no question that the impacts of climate change will be global. Sea level rise; ocean acidification; impacts on sea life; we're already losing huge chunks of coral; storms all over the globe are likely to be more intense; weather in general will be more extreme, in particular with more heat waves; storms will be able to dump more rain, because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere; arable land will be lost, while areas closer to the poles will not become more suitable for farming. The one potential benefit (more fertilization via atmospheric CO2) will not be anywhere near enough to offset the other negative effects.

Again, this is not going to happen overnight. It's going to take decades. But if we don't change our actions, it's going to happen, and sooner rather than later.



It's hard to notice, because it's gradual (by our standards) and is partially offset by larger geological changes. However, it's also accelerating. The sea level rose on average about 5" in the 20th Century, and could rise as much as 12" by 2100.

We've already started to see some of the effects with storms like Sandy, in the Maldives, in other coastal areas.



OK, let me try this again.

There is really no reason to doubt that human activity is having a huge impact on the environment, including significantly raising temperatures well in excess of any natural causes. The scientific evidence is as solid as for pretty much any other scientific theory, including quantum mechanics and relativity. The methods of conducting research are the same as in other fields of science. Climate change is no more a political issue than cancer, or heart disease, or the mass of an electron. The political aspect ought to be "how do we deal with this?"

Anyway. The tactics of those who accept CC are the same as with any other issue -- ranging from discussing facts, to illustrating effects using anecdotes, to peaceful protests around the world, to politicians taking action to encourage nations to work together to combat human activity, and more. People are doing pretty much everything they can. You claim, however, that these tactics are counter-productive. That's pretty much like saying that "our entire basis for dealing with conflicting ideas is counter-productive." Better yet, you offer no alternative methods for getting the word out. Seems a bit disingenuous to me....

Click to expand...

:bs:bs:bs

Northern Light said:

If only we had a theory that could explain why this is happening...

Click to expand...

I too shake my head at it. Might there be something linking current weather- linked events? But there are solutions from our leader. California is on fire. Trump said there was no drought here... and it started to rain. Puerto Rico is underwater. Trump threw paper towels to absorb the excess moisture. We're in good hands. Now if only Donald could get China to stop pushing the climate change hoax.

Northern Light said:

If only we had a theory that could explain why this is happening...

Click to expand...

God is doing it is one theory. Not a very useful one historically.

humbolt said:

Yep, and you're full of **** too, but you already know that.

Click to expand...

No defense of the quoted post offered. Noted.

Deuce said:

No defense of the quoted post offered. Noted.

Click to expand...

Since you offered nothing to dispute my post, I don't believe I need to defend it.

People keep talking about the melting permafrost, but I am thinking the permafrost
has been in continuous stages of melting for 20,000 years, and slowed to the current rate about 8,000 years ago.
From a somewhat related paper, we see retreats of the ice sheet fronts of between
150 and 900 meters a year.
https://serc.carleton.edu/vignettes/collection/58451.html

I think it is fairly safe to assume that the earth under the ice sheet was in a state of permafrost,
and that at some point after the ice sheet retreated, the remaining permafrost melted as well.
The latency between the retreat of the ice sheet, and the melting of the permafrost could be hundreds of years,
but it clearly happened, least permafrost would still exists in US, where we know the ice sheets existed.

Where I am going with this is that the melting of the permafrost likely parallels the retreat of the ice sheet,
which is still going on, but running out of ice sheet.
The remaining permafrost only represents a tiny fraction of what existed before, and has been melting
almost continuously for 20,000 years.