FARK.com: (1817967) Up to 90 percent of world's permafrost soil will thaw by 2100, releasing vast amounts of carbon into atmosphere, and many, many frozen caveman lawyers

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NCAR)		Up to 90 percent of world's permafrost soil will thaw by 2100, releasing vast amounts of carbon into atmosphere, and many, many frozen caveman lawyers (ucar.edu)		301
		More: Scary

• • •

8997 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2005 at 12:51 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/1817967

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

301 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

Fool_Marquis		2005-12-20 01:25:21 AM

(sigh) Listen folks, Global warming is a load of hooey.

Let's be absolutely, as honest as we can be, okay?

Earth has been here, just shy of 100 billion years now, am I right? anyone want to check?

Now, during that period of time, ole ma' earth has been through a lot of things, including asteroid strikes, volcanic eras, and, potentially, having another planet hit us (See "Where did our moon come from" theories)

Humanity has been around for a little over hundred thousand years, and we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 100 years.

If Global warming was real, the real indicator wouldn't be permafrost in siberia (which melts nearly every summer anyway)or ice caps at the poles, the only real indicator of a global change in temperature would be if the ocean level itself had risen noticeably in the last 100 years.

Now, where would this be more evident then a city founded before the industrial era, before mankind's hand blackened the skies (note, slight sarcasm.)

Venice, Italy would be ideal... EXCEPT for the fact that the damn place has been sinking an average of 7 cm per century for the last 1000 years. (What do you expect when they build the city on timbers sunk into a swamp?)

As it is, the best records of the ocean levels come from the most peaceful country in the world, America. (I meant peaceful at home! not abroad. yeesh). and these records indicate that, in the 135 years they have bbeen kept, the level of the ocean has not risen even one centimeter.

anyhow, Ocean's unmoving. It's 1:30 AM, and I'm going to bed. There is nothing to worry about kiddies. just some 'onnery 'ole eco-nuts trying to scare y'all.

krode		2005-12-20 01:29:05 AM

Fool_Marquis: Earth has been here, just shy of 100 billion years now, am I right? anyone want to check?

Don't need to check. It's 4 billion.

Our sun isn't even close to 100 billion. sheesh.

krode		2005-12-20 01:30:05 AM

And everything else you said was foolish. too.

Cladson		2005-12-20 01:32:27 AM

Yea big bang theroy says that the universe was made 15-20 billion years ago right? Correct me if I'm wrong

loworbit		2005-12-20 01:34:50 AM

Teenwolf
Aren't they just pure carbon, though? And hard as they are because of the structure? Each C atom connecting to 4 other C atoms, creating a tetrahedron around every C with a C at the center and a C at all four points?

Exactly, but to form that structure is the hard part. Hence the sarcasm comment. Either Cladson is poking fun, or thinking something else entirely.

Atario		2005-12-20 01:35:10 AM

Weaver95: Gee, yet another article from some eco-nuts telling us all that the world is going to end.

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal, Weaver95?

Goetz		2005-12-20 01:35:30 AM

.....100 billion years.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt.
I'm so sorry, but you have disqualified yourself from further comment.

The exit is down the hall and to the left.

thx
bye

Abagadro		2005-12-20 01:36:05 AM

Earth has been here, just shy of 100 billion years now, am I right? anyone want to check?

Always good to start your authoritative rambling with a ridiculous falsehood.

Teenwolf		2005-12-20 01:37:05 AM

Actually, the Earth has only been around for a few thousand years. Any fossil evidence that predates that was put here by God to test our faith. The Big Bang Theory was created by Satan.

</sarcasm>

swahnhennessy		2005-12-20 01:37:49 AM

If there's one constant in this world it's that Weaver95 will enter a thread on global warming and find an excuse to say "eco-nuts".

sirgrim		2005-12-20 01:39:31 AM

I would like to welcome our future cavemen overlords.

RockIsDead		2005-12-20 01:39:48 AM

Well then I guess they need to give it a different name.

dilate		2005-12-20 01:39:51 AM

Following the article/headline's example of selectively using the word Carbon when they actually mean Carbon Dioxide or Methane couldn't we say this thawing will release vast ammounts of OXYGEN into the atmosphere? What's so wrong with saying CARBON DIOXIDE? Come on now, say it with me, you're half way there by saying carbon.

Teechur		2005-12-20 01:39:58 AM

Had to do it...

/"Your world frightens and confuses me!"
//"Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever..."

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 01:40:46 AM

From the article: permafrost, defined as soil that remains below 32 degrees F (0 degrees C) for at least two years. Permafrost is typically characterized by an active surface layer, extending anywhere from a few centimeters to several meters deep, which thaws during the summer and refreezes during the winter.

Contradiction?

Merriam-Webster: PERMAFROST

Dictionary.com: PERMAFROST

I'll bet this guy has more frequent flier miles than I do.

EggSniper		2005-12-20 01:44:16 AM

You all keep pointing fingers while I kiss NASA's ass in the hopes of getting a spot on the first refugee ship.

Cladson		2005-12-20 01:55:16 AM

I have more faith in richard branson, Egg

theurge14		2005-12-20 01:57:39 AM

Potted stromatolite plants will be all the rage soon:

Suburban backyard pools of iron teeming with cyanobacteria will be all the rage again, just like they were billions of years ago:

Don't worry folks, the only thing we have to fear now are supervolcanos and lurking giant asteroids.

And endless reruns of more crazy stuff on the History/Discovery/National Geographic channel.

scottpi		2005-12-20 02:00:04 AM

I know how to make money, I'll sue Russia for the pollution they are releasing on the world.
If some environmental whack jobs can sue the federal government for melting the ice caps, we just need to be creative enough and make this lucrative for all of us.
My feeling is the only way to get a reversal of the "DAMAGE" done is for all people world wide to stop all car, train, plane, etc (generating electricity) traffic.
Even if we were to go to these extreme measures we just may find the Earth is in a cycle that no man created or can change.

Zamboro		2005-12-20 02:00:14 AM

Call me crazy, but I think we should err on the side of caution, and listen to those who are smarter than us.

namatad		2005-12-20 02:03:17 AM

yawn
who cares?
and why?

isnt it hubris at this point to ASSUME that anything that we can do at this point will actually SLOW global warming?

what if we had NOTHING to do with the cause of global warming?
what if it is caused by, the suns normal cyclical flucations?

given that there is next to nothing that we could do to stop it, where would our effort be better spent??

I guess if we really really wanted to END global warming, we could just blow up all of our ICBMs.
They told us that ww3 would cause a nuclear winter ...
nuclear winter + global warming = paradise

with the added bonus of getting rid of those pesky stockpiles!!

/solving global problems since before tomorrow

Psion		2005-12-20 02:03:42 AM

Teenwolf, you remember right.

The bad aspect of global warming in my opinion isn't the rising seas or posibility of increased droughts. We can move to higher ground, we can get water in other ways or move to wetter terrain. People even now are probably starting to realize that living next to the ocean in an era of ever intensifying storms isn't such a good idea.

When carbon is released into the atmosphere, it is then absorbed by the oceans, and the PH goes down. So what you say? Well the plankton and coral and whatnot don't like low PH(acid) water. A scientist put plankton in water that has the estimated PH of the oceans in 50 years, and their shells disolved right in front of his eyes. Much life in the oceans uses the slightly alkaline nature of water to build carbonate shells. What happens when all the plankton die?

Although, at current usage rates, we'll probably run out of cost effective oil in about 40 years. Saudi Arabia, the number one producer, may have already reached peak oil. Last year, they tried to increase their output to meet the demand from China, and failed to do so, and in fact fell short of estimates. There is widespread speculation that many OPEC countries inflated their oil reserve estimates so that they could pump more oil and make more money. (OPEC stipulates how much oil a country can pump based upon their estimated reserves). The north sea feild is also past peak, and the Russians passed peak decades ago. Many other oil feilds are pitifull compared to the 37billion barrels we currently use per year as a planet. Natural gas is running out as well; Fertilizer manufacturers use natural gas, and they've almost all abandoned the US as a site of production in the last couple of years because we are running out of natural gas. ( we currently get most of our from Canada, but they'll start having problems in a decade or so as well, and liquid natural gas is very expensive and cumbersome to ship from overseas.

So it's looking like we might just run out of fossil fuels just before we can permanently fark up the planet past the point of no return. But, our sprawling, automobile connected, shiatty, inefficient house based society isn't going to come through the shortage without alot of pain.

junkee		2005-12-20 02:07:27 AM

I don't think it is a contradiction, KingSizeLite. the "active surface layer" thaws and refreezes. the permafrost is...permanently frosty.

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 02:10:16 AM

scottpi: Earth is in a cycle that no man created or can change.

/Don't beam me up.
//There appears to be intelligent life on this planet.

namatad		2005-12-20 02:10:31 AM

yawn
"emissions are killing the planet."

I am so TIRED of this BULLshiat

emissions are NOT killing the planet
earth will be here LONG after we are history

we might be killing species, but in the real world, that happened before we were here and will happen after we are gone

so what these FOOLS mean to say
is that emissions are killing:
poor people
spotted owls
people on the coasts
destroying species sooner than they might naturally have survived

polar bears are pretty
and it will be sad when the north pole is melted and they are gone (or left in zoos)
but folks, they are the LAST of the GREAT carnivores that roamed during the last great ice age ...
they have just been the BEST at surviving
the rest have all died or been killed ...

it is called nature
and nature is not static ...

/bring on the global warming it is below freezing here :)
//time to drive around more to warm up my town
///you really want to cut down on CO2? stop breathing !!

Tenkin		2005-12-20 02:14:32 AM

Who really cares what happens in 2100? Besides, we all know that by 2101, war will be begining... and then who the fark will worry about permafrost?

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 02:14:58 AM

Thanks junkee! Now I want to go to Wendy's

mr0x		2005-12-20 02:15:52 AM

namatad [TotalFark]

yawn
"emissions are killing the planet."

I am so TIRED of this BULLshiat

emissions are NOT killing the planet
earth will be here LONG after we are history

we might be killing species, but in the real world, that happened before we were here and will happen after we are gone

so what these FOOLS mean to say
is that emissions are killing:
poor people
spotted owls
people on the coasts
destroying species sooner than they might naturally have survived

polar bears are pretty
and it will be sad when the north pole is melted and they are gone (or left in zoos)
but folks, they are the LAST of the GREAT carnivores that roamed during the last great ice age ...
they have just been the BEST at surviving
the rest have all died or been killed ...

it is called nature
and nature is not static ...

/bring on the global warming it is below freezing here :)
//time to drive around more to warm up my town
///you really want to cut down on CO2? stop breathing !!

Yes, it's all true.

However the question is, "humans have evolved in this current earths' environment; if the environment changes how much will it affect humans?"

Last time the environment changed drastically, the dinosaurs died out. When the envionment changes this time, nature will go on. But, will humans?

SpoonPlz		2005-12-20 02:17:00 AM

namatad, that's a brilliant idea! Be passive! Nothing can hurt you! You arn't poor or an animal, and you never will be!

Cladson		2005-12-20 02:17:34 AM

DUN DUn dun

mr0x		2005-12-20 02:20:08 AM

namatad [TotalFark]

yawn
who cares?
and why?

isnt it hubris at this point to ASSUME that anything that we can do at this point will actually SLOW global warming?

what if we had NOTHING to do with the cause of global warming?
what if it is caused by, the suns normal cyclical flucations?

given that there is next to nothing that we could do to stop it, where would our effort be better spent??

I guess if we really really wanted to END global warming, we could just blow up all of our ICBMs.
They told us that ww3 would cause a nuclear winter ...
nuclear winter + global warming = paradise

with the added bonus of getting rid of those pesky stockpiles!!

/solving global problems since before tomorrow

And only insects would survive in the radiation thereafter.

Also, ICBM technically are only missiles that can travel across continents. I don't think ICBM and nukes are synonymous.

BigPoppaPorno		2005-12-20 02:20:51 AM

I'll be dead so who da fark cares?

Psion		2005-12-20 02:22:56 AM

Namatad

Except the warming curve exactly matches the carbon emissions curve. Correlation is not always causation and all that, but you'd be a fool to ignore the data.

But like I said in my previous post, the warming in and of itself isn't such a big deal. So what if the permafrost melts? Canada and Russia will just have more living room. (although melting permafrost is causing big problems in some Russian cities as the ground unfreezes from under the buildings in some towns, causing them to sink--but that's a minor problem). So what if the glaciers all melt? Move to higher ground-- sorry Florida, but you've gotta pay for 2000 somehow :p. The glaciers have all melted before, the ice cores in antartica and Greenland all show that. Greenland was icefree as recently as 130000 years ago, Antarica 400,000.

What's different is that this time it's because we are releasing unprecedented amounts of carbon into the atmosphere- Carbon that has been locked up for millions of years. This could have devastating effects on many ecosytems as the PH of water all over the world lowers.

Then again, it might not do much at all, or we may run out of fossil fuels before it gets that bad. I'm more curious than anything to see what happens. We're running a giant uncontrolled experiment with the planet.

manderx		2005-12-20 02:26:55 AM

Behold the aforementioned eco-nuts. Who would believe these unqualified alarmists?

looks like a list of people looking for funding. personally i think we need to put the whole arguement of 'global warming' and whether it's caused/amplified by human activites aside as a moot point. either way we need to do a better job of taking care of the environment. period.

BigPoppaPorno		2005-12-20 02:28:46 AM

Psion
nothing matters to the Earth. It goes on, no matter what. The earth has cycles, life lives & dies by those cycles. The earth doesn't care & continues on. We don't matter a hill of shiat to the earth. We're just a lil bubble in time.

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 02:29:02 AM

mr0x

To believe that humans have any real effect on the atmosphere is a bit like saying that fleas control the destiny of the dog.

/Arrogant fleas!

krode		2005-12-20 02:29:07 AM

Cladson: Yea big bang theroy says that the universe was made 15-20 billion years ago right? Correct me if I'm wrong

Well, you're not wrong per se, but it's not really the big bang theory that states that. It supports it, along with a lot of observable evidence (as opposed to theory).

chakalakasp		2005-12-20 02:29:16 AM

Fool_Marquis wrote:

If Global warming was real, the real indicator wouldn't be permafrost in siberia (which melts nearly every summer anyway)or ice caps at the poles, the only real indicator of a global change in temperature would be if the ocean level itself had risen noticeably in the last 100 years

Someone needs to look up the definition of "permafrost". Hey, how old was the earth again? Didn't you say that it was 100 billion years old? Hey, who knew the earth was around 80 billion years before the universe came into existence?

Doh! Your attempt at looking smart and informed failed miserably! Best try again!

krode		2005-12-20 02:29:45 AM

oh, um, /b

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo		2005-12-20 02:31:32 AM

The thing is, fundies argue against the available scientific evidence, these folks use it to make testable predictions about the future. There is a slight difference between the groups.

Psion		2005-12-20 02:32:13 AM

mrOx
Last time the environment changed drastically, the dinosaurs died out. When the envionment changes this time, nature will go on. But, will humans?

Nah, we're far more adaptable than that.

Only things that would wipe us out are a superplague, a large asteroid or rogue neutron star or other wacky astronomical event, or a turn away from science and a devolution into apathy. Note, a nuclear war wouldn't wipe us out, though it would come close.

We'll probably be around long after "nature" is gone.....though we came from nature, and the distinction between natural and not-natural is arbitrary.

mr0x		2005-12-20 02:34:09 AM

Fool_Marquis

(sigh) Listen folks, Global warming is a load of hooey.

Let's be absolutely, as honest as we can be, okay?

Earth has been here, just shy of 100 billion years now, am I right? anyone want to check?

Now, during that period of time, ole ma' earth has been through a lot of things, including asteroid strikes, volcanic eras, and, potentially, having another planet hit us (See "Where did our moon come from" theories)

Humanity has been around for a little over hundred thousand years, and we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 100 years.

If Global warming was real, the real indicator wouldn't be permafrost in siberia (which melts nearly every summer anyway)or ice caps at the poles, the only real indicator of a global change in temperature would be if the ocean level itself had risen noticeably in the last 100 years.

Now, where would this be more evident then a city founded before the industrial era, before mankind's hand blackened the skies (note, slight sarcasm.)

Venice, Italy would be ideal... EXCEPT for the fact that the damn place has been sinking an average of 7 cm per century for the last 1000 years. (What do you expect when they build the city on timbers sunk into a swamp?)

As it is, the best records of the ocean levels come from the most peaceful country in the world, America. (I meant peaceful at home! not abroad. yeesh). and these records indicate that, in the 135 years they have bbeen kept, the level of the ocean has not risen even one centimeter.

anyhow, Ocean's unmoving. It's 1:30 AM, and I'm going to bed. There is nothing to worry about kiddies. just some 'onnery 'ole eco-nuts trying to scare y'all.

Sheesh, man.

Now, if India and China get a hold of these ideas and stop listening to our eco-nuts, they might go nuts and start using all sorts of polluting crap; stuff like CFCs to cut cost. After all they'll be thinking, the earth is just in some farking cycle, what do we care if we can make a few bucks at its' expense. After all it's making a hole in Antartica so who farking cares if a few polar bears die?

Would you feel the same way if the Chinese and Indians were polluting more than we were?

Raspil		2005-12-20 02:35:28 AM

i'll be long dead by that time so whatev

BigPoppaPorno		2005-12-20 02:36:29 AM

2005-12-20 02:31:32 AM Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo
The thing is, fundies argue against the available scientific evidence, these folks use it to make testable predictions about the future. There is a slight difference between the groups.

Testable how? The future is untestable by its very nature. The past is testable by cycles but there's always the invariables to screw up future results. A meteor just blew up your future testables

Psion		2005-12-20 02:39:35 AM

BigPoppaPorno

Well.......until the sun goes nova and the earth vanishes into it like a bug in a volcano.

Though there is always the possibilty that we'll move the earth out of harm's way. It's not that hard to do, we have the technology right now to move the earth away from the sun at exactly the rate that is heating up.

(the sun has been slowly heating up since it formed 4.6 billion years ago, and is now about 30% hotter than it was then. This is because it is still slowly contracting from its formation, and the production of helium from fusion in the core also makes the core denser. As the density goes up, the efficiency of fusion goes up, and the sun gets hotter. While it will take 4ish billion years for the sun to go nova and destroy the earth, the increasing heat output will be enough to trigger a run-away greenhouse and boil the oceans in about 1 billion unless our distant decendants do something........just thought you'd like to know.)

birkin		2005-12-20 02:39:42 AM

nature always changes.

/doesn't know why people freak about natural change

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 02:40:38 AM

mr0x Would you feel the same way if the Chinese and Indians were polluting more than we were?

They already are! What planet are YOU on?

Kaang		2005-12-20 02:42:19 AM

"Growing plants take in CO2, while decomposing soil gives it off. Cold tundra soils don't decompose much, so historically the Arctic has been a net absorber, or sink, of CO2 from the atmosphere. It's been that way for 10,000 years"

"The tundra and boreal forest soils store as much carbon as the entire global atmosphere holds."

"So if all this organic matter will go as CO2, so we can double actually CO2 in the atmosphere. "

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS PROGRAM #1404
"Hot Times in Alaska"
AIRDATE: June 15, 2004
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/resources/transcript.htm

The scary part is that once the permafrost starts melting...much of what took 10,000 years to sequester gets released back into the atmosphere over a period of just a few years (at least, where they were observing).

/not afraid of immediate death from climate catastrophe
/head not firmly planted in the sand

BigPoppaPorno		2005-12-20 02:44:03 AM

we have the technology to move the earth? I gotta call shenagins on that!! Thats worse than UFO'S or Global Warming theory. Simply false & unproven.......just like......uh.......this thread

Psion		2005-12-20 02:44:22 AM

No fundies don't argue against the available evidence. They ignore it....maybe pay lip service to it while they totally misunderstand it, but you can't argue against something you never bothered to understand.

Science: Uses facts to form hypotheses, then tests the hypotheses to get theories. Gets new facts, and repeats.

Fundamentalism: Uses a theory to.....well that's it, they alredy think they have all the answers.

Displayed 50 of 301 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.