NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00018706-7F7C-13A8-BF7C83414B7F0000

"Our model predicts that the area with permafrost in the top [11 feet] will fall sharply over the next century," explains climate change researcher David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. "Deeper permafrost, which can extend down [more than one mile] and which our model does not represent, will be largely unaffected by global warming."

Even in the best case scenario, permafrost shrinks to cover just 1.5 million square miles. "Permafrost degradation of this magnitude is likely to have significant adverse ecological and societal impacts,"

Arctic rivers already carry 7 percent more fresh water to the ocean today than they did in the 1930s. The model correctly predicts this rise and points to as much as a 28 percent increase in water flow by century's end, as water drains through northern ground without being blocked by frozen soil. This could impact everything from the formation of sea ice to the circulation of currents in the Arctic Ocean.

Even more troubling, this permafrost layer contains anywhere from 20 to 60 percent of the carbon trapped in soils in the world. Thawing could lead to a massive "positive feedback loop" that pushes global greenhouse gas concentrations ever higher.

But nothing to see here folks.

Let's not forget the bodies of people infected with various diseases who are buried up there...

HHHMmmmmmmm. I heard all about this..... LAST YEAR!:rolleyes:

HHHMmmmmmmm. I heard all about this..... LAST YEAR!:rolleyes:

Ah, so that's two studies that corroborate each other. Excellent job pointing that out.

Ah, so that's two studies that corroborate each other. Excellent job pointing that out.
I agree 100% with the article. I'm not neo-con Bushite you apparently think I am.

I have quite a few left of center views.

Personally, I think we're looking at the wrong thing. We should be looking at pollution itself, not greenhouse gasses, IMO. Greenhouse gasses are NATURAL; human pollution is NOT. Let the world warm up, I say.

Well then ... so much for "perma" ... what's it gonna be now .... "Semifrost"?

I agree 100% with the article. I'm not neo-con Bushite you apparently think I am.

I have quite a few left of center views.
:eek:
Gasp!!

You know, that would qualify the bizarre act of me asking you to share more of yourself with us, in that sense. I know, i still feel a little weird about it.
BTW, if you want it, i've got a SH*TLOAD of info on this issue, on a couple of drives. For corroboration, for confirmation, whatevah.

Gymoor does too. We were DP'n a lot of folks on the last couple threads that spent any time dealing with this issue. Except, of course, when i was a ghost.

Well then ... so much for "perma" ... what's it gonna be now .... "Semifrost"?
Good one. *bows*
Maybe, "perma-sludge".

How about "massive area of sinkholes and carbon emissions"?

How about "massive area of sinkholes and carbon emissions"?

I foresee the next great theme-park.

The biggest problem with this is that it is difficult to tell if it is natural or not. If it is due to a slight rise in temperature, though, I wouldn't be surprised if those lefty environmentalist nutcases were right (ha, lefties right... eh). I've also read about regions of coral reef disappearing. And let's not forget how overfished our seas are. As much as I'd like to think like a conservative, conserving our environment is important to me, not our holy moral values*... which some early liberals thought would prevent market corruption.

*of plundering the world.

Well then ... so much for "perma" ... what's it gonna be now .... "Semifrost"?

i think they're actually leaning towards occasiafrost

The biggest problem with this is that it is difficult to tell if it is natural or not. If it is due to a slight rise in temperature, though, I wouldn't be surprised if those lefty environmentalist nutcases were right (ha, lefties right... eh). I've also read about regions of coral reef disappearing. And let's not forget how overfished our seas are. As much as I'd like to think like a conservative, conserving our environment is important to me, not our holy moral values*... which some early liberals thought would prevent market corruption.

*of plundering the world.
To truncate, the evidence is WIDELY swung in the favour of not so natural.
The evidence is ample as long as you aren't frequenting political sources for scientific results.

EDIT:
Since it didn't appear to come up on this thread so far ....

*ahem*

Monday, December 19, 2005 · Last updated 2:03 p.m. PT

U.S. greenhouse gases rose 2 percent

By JOHN HEILPRIN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Emissions of gases blamed for warming the atmosphere grew by 2
percent in the United States last year, the Energy Department reported
Monday. The report came just nine days after a United Nations conference
where the United States and China refused to join any talks for imposing
binding limits on emissions of those gases.

The so-called greenhouse gases, led by carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide, rose to 7.12 million metric tons, up from 6.98 million metric tons in
2003, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said.

That's 16 percent higher than in 1990, and an average annual increase of 1.1
percent.

About 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases last year was carbon dioxide from
burning fossil fuels - coal, petroleum and natural gas - for electricity,
transportation, manufacturing and other industrial processes.

The U.N. conference's Kyoto Protocol, which took effect among developing
countries last year despite President Bush's rejection of it in 2001, had
called for nations to cut their 1990 levels of "greenhouse" gas emissions by
5 percent by 2012.

Instead, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 would be nearly 25 percent
higher than they were in 1990 if they continue at the current pace of
growth. The United States is responsible for a quarter of these
heat-trapping gases globally.


More than 150 nations have agreed to negotiate a second phase of mandatory
cuts in greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2012. India has joined the United
States and China in declining to take part in it.

Under the Bush Administration, the United States has focused on voluntary
efforts and bilateral and regional arrangements to combat climate change
while devoting about $3 billion a year in government funds to research and
development of energy-saving technologies. One of those programs includes
contributing seed money to companies that can export U.S. technology for
reusing methane, the second biggest greenhouse gas.

---

On the Net:

EIA report: ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057304.pdf

U.N. climate conference: http://www.montreal2005.gc.ca

i think they're actually leaning towards occasiafrost
Hahaha!
*FLORT*

mostlyfrost. :)

Yea, they've been shouting Global Warming since the 1980's, but its not warmed up that much. And if anything global warming is probably caused by sunspots ( in the 40's it was warmer then it is today largely because of active sunspots, and in the last 10-20 years or so its actually been cooling, and there haven't been any larger sunspots occuring).

But of course science doesn't matter to the elitists pushing global warming (15,000 scientists with specialized education in that area of study signed a petition stating that evidence was not conclusive enough to say that global warming was caused by human activites. 15000= 2/3rds of the worlds scientists with specialized education in that area of study). And so the world is made to suffer. In the US the EPA(Enviromental Protection Agency) passed new regulations on C02 emmissions that not even nature can abide by.

Yea, they've been shouting Global Warming since the 1980's, but its not warmed up that much. And if anything global warming is probably caused by sunspots ( in the 40's it was warmer then it is today largely because of active sunspots, and in the last 10-20 years or so its actually been cooling, and there haven't been any larger sunspots occuring).

But of course science doesn't matter to the elitists pushing global warming (15,000 scientists with specialized education in that area of study signed a petition stating that evidence was not conclusive enough to say that global warming was caused by human activites. 15000= 2/3rds of the worlds scientists with specialized education in that area of study). And so the world is made to suffer. In the US the EPA(Enviromental Protection Agency) passed new regulations on C02 emmissions that not even nature can abide by.

Care to quote some sources on that?

(Not that I'm dounting you, but this is a new argument I've not heard yet, and am interested in looking at it.) Sunspots eh...

Yea, they've been shouting Global Warming since the 1980's, but its not warmed up that much. And if anything global warming is probably caused by sunspots ( in the 40's it was warmer then it is today largely because of active sunspots, and in the last 10-20 years or so its actually been cooling, and there haven't been any larger sunspots occuring).

But of course science doesn't matter to the elitists pushing global warming (15,000 scientists with specialized education in that area of study signed a petition stating that evidence was not conclusive enough to say that global warming was caused by human activites. 15000= 2/3rds of the worlds scientists with specialized education in that area of study). And so the world is made to suffer. In the US the EPA(Enviromental Protection Agency) passed new regulations on C02 emmissions that not even nature can abide by.

Actually, several studies have shown that the amount of variance caused by solar cycles cannot account for the temperature increase.

As for that 15,000 scientists petition, it was found that the great majority had no degrees in the sciences that relate to climatology. Furthermore, several "suspicious" names appeared on the petition, including (all in a group,) Drs. Potter, Hawkeye, Honeycut and Burns.

Wiki will give you a good start on the Oregon Petition. Don't take Wiki's opinion on it, follow the links, and when the links get you familiar with some of the names involved, google them. See what you turn up. The more you know about the Oregon Petition, the fishier it gets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00018706-7F7C-13A8-BF7C83414B7F0000

But nothing to see here folks.
And your point is?

The article does point out that even if gases held steady at a certain level after a slight increase from present levels, the permafrost will continue to shrink. This indicates that simply reducing CO2 production around the margins is going to be ineffective.

We need to be looking at solutions to adapt to the changing climate.

As much as I'd like to think like a conservative, conserving our environment is important to me,
Surely conserving the environment is compatible with conservatism?

The permafrost is melting...there is no doubt. I lived in Inuvik, NWT (Canada) for 3 years...high above the Arctic circle. Up there, all buildings are on stilts (so that any heat generated does not melt the permafrost below, and cause major shifting and cracking) or on refrigeration coils (which does the same thing). However, each year, buildings are shifting and settling as the ground below unfreezes, centimetre by centimetre. It's a real problem for the structural integrity of all the buildings in the North.

The permafrost is melting...there is no doubt. I lived in Inuvik, NWT (Canada) for 3 years...high above the Arctic circle. Up there, all buildings are on stilts (so that any heat generated does not melt the permafrost below, and cause major shifting and cracking) or on refrigeration coils (which does the same thing). However, each year, buildings are shifting and settling as the ground below unfreezes, centimetre by centimetre. It's a real problem for the structural integrity of all the buildings in the North.
Seconded!
*bows*
I live in Alaska where you better believe that it gets a lot of attention. Not just the coastliners, but the fishermen whose yields are altered by glacial runoff killing the spawning waters, as well as construction crews and liabilities of the like of having the ground squish out from underneath them. And the polar bears.
I have gone on about this for some time. So has Gymoor.

Actually, several studies have shown that the amount of variance caused by solar cycles cannot account for the temperature increase.

As for that 15,000 scientists petition, it was found that the great majority had no degrees in the sciences that relate to climatology. Furthermore, several "suspicious" names appeared on the petition, including (all in a group,) Drs. Potter, Hawkeye, Honeycut and Burns.

Wiki will give you a good start on the Oregon Petition. Don't take Wiki's opinion on it, follow the links, and when the links get you familiar with some of the names involved, google them. See what you turn up. The more you know about the Oregon Petition, the fishier it gets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
"But they're real names!! It's just a coincidence! You forgot Quinn, Medicine Woman, Zhivago, Dre, Doom, Pepper, Who, Love, Demento and Nick! ":rolleyes:

Excellent post, Gym.
BTW, do you currently possess any of your earlier posts on this issue on some archive? Like i was saying, i can't retrieve the stuff from the best Global Warming threads since they switched servers. TG me or something, per favore?

BTW redux, Tarsonis seems to liken me to your posse. Curious.