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

• • •

8995 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

PlasteredDragon		2005-12-20 02:44:38 AM

Fool_marquis: ...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...

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

The sea level has risen more than 120 metres since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. The bulk of that occurred before 6000 years ago. From 3000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr [1]; since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of about 3 mm/yr [2]. This change may be the first signs of the effect of global warming on sea level, which is predicted to cause significant rises in sea level over the course of the twenty-first century.

Global warming is quite real. The only question is whether it has anything to do with greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities.

krode		2005-12-20 02:46:10 AM

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

Actually, our sun won't go nova. It's just gonna start cooling. Either way, Earth is dead. But we still got 3-4 billion years left.

/plantery mid-life crisis in effect

mr0x		2005-12-20 02:48:52 AM

Psion

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.

You're thinking of artificial ways to not feel the effects of change - which is not adaptation in the biological sense since it requires genetic change. In terms of genetic change, we are have as many or even more genetic material than dinosaurs so I don't know if we are more adaptable at that front.

krode		2005-12-20 02:49:02 AM

Figured I should actually look it up, just to have some evidence to back up my wacky claims.

Our sun cools and expands

/pops

BigPoppaPorno		2005-12-20 02:50:54 AM

Psion......the reasl problem arises when so called scientists but mostly celebrities take minor data, say the last 50 years, & try to extrapolate it into a manmade disaster without knowing the larger scheme of things. fundies are bad but pseudoscientists are JUST as bad. There's fact's. lies & statistic's..........all equally bad.

mbrother		2005-12-20 02:51:55 AM

krode:

"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).

I'll correct you, Cladson. The best estimate is 13.7 billion years, based on analysis of the microwave background radiation as measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). And to the extent that the theory is correct, we're nailing the parameters down and putting on decimal places now.

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 02:52:45 AM

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

Close. Just reverse the terms and you've got it.

mr0x		2005-12-20 02:53:34 AM

KingSizeLite

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?

You must be from the future.

As of now, the United States leads in the pollution department; in any statistical format - pollution total, pollution per person, pollution per capita.

But, India and China will catch up and overtake for sure in the future since they're got a few billion people among them.

mbrother		2005-12-20 02:53:49 AM

krode:

Figured I should actually look it up, just to have some evidence to back up my wacky claims.

Our sun cools and expands

/pops

Good for the link -- I don't have to correct you now about how the sun becomes a giant, then a planetary nebula, and finally a white dwarf. Oh, and Earth gets toasted in the red giant stage in another 5 billion years or so.

Psion		2005-12-20 02:54:48 AM

Krode

blink

Ahhh......you are confusing "nova" with "supernova" I think. they are totally different beasts.

A Nova is just a poof compared to a supernova. Our sun is far too small to ever supernova. But even a regular old nova will be enough to vaporize the earth.

In a nova, the start just puffs up and shed its outerlayers when its core gets compact enough to finally start fusing helium. Helium produces even more heat than hydrogen fusion, and this extra heat makes the outer layers of the star puff up, forming a red giant.

Our sun will definately nova ( after which it will indeed just fade away as a white dwarf), and it will have a radius larger than the earth's orbit, and possibly Mars.

krode		2005-12-20 02:55:33 AM

mbrother

You couldn't have corrected me anyway, I didn't say anything about the change in size of the Sun, I simply said it didn't nova/supernova.

krode		2005-12-20 02:56:21 AM

Psion

i stand corrected. at least in part.

Psion		2005-12-20 02:57:52 AM

I post too slow....

But from your link.....it fails to mention that sun-like stars also nova towards the end of their lives.

mbrother		2005-12-20 02:57:59 AM

PlasteredDragon:

Global warming is quite real. The only question is whether it has anything to do with greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities.

Your last sentence should probably read, "The only question is how much it has anything to do with greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities."

We know global temperatures are already affected by the greenhouse effect. There's a simple calculation you can do to figure out the temperature of Earth given its distance from the sun, and making a comparison to the actual temperature. You can get a lot more complicated, of course, but we already benefit from a mild greenhouse effect.

krode		2005-12-20 02:59:43 AM

Psion: But from your link.....it fails to mention that sun-like stars also nova towards the end of their lives.

It does by the definition you give, it just doesn't use the word.

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 03:02:45 AM

mr0x: You must be from the future.

As of now, the United States leads in the pollution department; in any statistical format - pollution total, pollution per person, pollution per capita.

But, India and China will catch up and overtake for sure in the future since they're got a few billion people among them.

Could you post your source for this data?

mbrother		2005-12-20 03:02:47 AM

krode:

You couldn't have corrected me anyway, I didn't say anything about the change in size of the Sun, I simply said it didn't nova/supernova.

To be picky, you got the timeframe slightly long, and only mentioned the 30% cooling ignoring the much more significant effect of the sun increasing in size over an order of magnitude. The luminosity will increase before then by factors of a few, and then by orders of magnitude in the giant phase.

I'm an astronomy professor. I can likely correct anything you say on the subject, even when what you say is basically correct. It's my perogative for years of hard work and low pay, don't you think?

gstefan		2005-12-20 03:03:40 AM

And as it gets hotter more Carbon will be deposited as Limestone or used by vegitation.

BTW the average temperature of the Earth is still much higher over the geologic past than it is now. During the Cretaceous the icecaps had completely melted and deep ocean currents were driven solely by salinity.

LincolnLogolas		2005-12-20 03:04:07 AM

Weaver95

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

Meh - I don't believe the fundies when THEY try peddling this crap. Why should I believe this?

In the case of eco-nuts, there's scientists backing up their claims with empirical data.

mbrother		2005-12-20 03:05:19 AM

Psion:

Our sun will definately nova ( after which it will indeed just fade away as a white dwarf), and it will have a radius larger than the earth's orbit, and possibly Mars.

It will definately NOT nova. You're confusing a nova with a planetary nebula.

A nova occurs in a binary system involving a white dwarf after a layer of hydrogren builds up on the surface, undergoes a phase change, and begins surface fusion. Many such nova systems repeat on timescales of decades, or longer. Our sun is not in a binary, and will never become a nova.

mr0x		2005-12-20 03:06:07 AM

BigPoppaPorno

I'll be dead so who da fark cares?

And, I also live far away from the oceans.
And, it gets too cold here in Michigan anyway!

It's probably a good thing since my real estate value is going to go up in the future.

Psion		2005-12-20 03:10:12 AM

Well I seem to have used the word nova when I should have just said "goes red giant". I found plenty of cases on the web where the word was also used incorrectly( though none with any scientific merit, such as a poem), though I still feel like a dumbass for now. Time for bed.

Psion		2005-12-20 03:11:19 AM

Yep, mbrother.......did I mention I post slow?

chakalakasp		2005-12-20 03:14:16 AM

BigPoppaPorno wrote:

Psion......the reasl problem arises when so called scientists but mostly celebrities take minor data, say the last 50 years, & try to extrapolate it into a manmade disaster without knowing the larger scheme of things. fundies are bad but pseudoscientists are JUST as bad. There's fact's. lies & statistic's..........all equally bad.

Yes, well, the "reasl problem" with what you are suggesting is that most of the "celebrities" you speak of are meteorologists and climatologists with phDs, including the National Academy of the Sciences, which includes a Nobel Prize winner.

Basically, the only people who deny that global climate change is occuring are people with political and financial agendas. Unfortunately, geophysical and climatalogical processes and feedbacks really doesn't give a flip what we think about what is going on. The laws of physics don't bend for pundits, and a hundred years from now when all the nations of the world are suffering food shortages, mass displacements, and geopolitical unrest because food just don't grow where it used to and because the global ocean heat conveyor currents change or disappear, well, all that ORLY Factor discussion about the "controversy" over "alleged climate change" will seem a lot less amusing than it does right now. Human society can take a lot, but MODERN human society, as New Orleans demonstrates, is very dependent on everything being just so. And the great system of modern human society is the only thing keeping us all from starving and murdering ourselves back down to a more "naturally" sustainable population level.

mbrother		2005-12-20 03:20:52 AM

Psion: Yep, mbrother.......did I mention I post slow?

Better late than never.

chakalakasp:

Basically, the only people who deny that global climate change is occuring are people with political and financial agendas.

Worth repeating. I'm especially amazed at how passionate some badly informed people with the biases you point out actually get about it. It'd be nice if people only ranted about stuff they understood, but then all the pundits and politicians would be out of a job.

LincolnLogolas		2005-12-20 03:20:59 AM

BigPoppaPorno

Psion......the reasl problem arises when so called scientists but mostly celebrities take minor data, say the last 50 years, & try to extrapolate it into a manmade disaster without knowing the larger scheme of things. fundies are bad but pseudoscientists are JUST as bad. There's fact's. lies & statistic's..........all equally bad.

Yeah, those guys down there in Antarctica are real celebrities. Do you consider a person an automatic celebrity when they get their PhD in some manner of scientific study?

I've got three words in response to your "minor data, say the last 50 years" comment: Ice Core Samples

Daricus		2005-12-20 03:21:57 AM

I don't blame people for not believing in the damage, or even getting mad at people like myself who have the nerve to talk about it. Getting angry and dismissive is easier than facing the reality that we are indeed "killing the planet". Or, if you prefer, changing the ecosystem.

I read recently that scientists are just now starting to understand what they refer to as the "symphony of life", a very complex and beautiful pattern to the rise, fall, and change of life on the planet. The problem is, when the sheet music gets close to present day, it stops being a symphony, and becomes a child smashing out random notes with no rhyme or reason.

I think that earth, life is hella tough. It will adapt, and will continue on, even in the WWIII nukes galore scenario. But wether it comes to that, or wether it is just a gradual rot of the ecosystems we touch, I don't see any changes being made benefiting us in the long run. I live in Canada, and the climate has noticably changed in our lifetimes. They tell me that in a few years, the local climate will support growing kiwis. But I don't want to eat kiwis as much as I want to make sure my great great grandkids (if I do indeed have them) will be able to go to Disneyland without a snorkel.

mbrother		2005-12-20 03:22:07 AM

Psion: Well I seem to have used the word nova when I should have just said "goes red giant".

I think it'd be funny if the Human Torch "went red giant" once in a while for a change of pace and humor.

Funzo		2005-12-20 03:31:56 AM

What I do know is that when a man slips on ice in front of a public library, he's entitled to $25 million.

/Keyrock's words are as true now as they were in his time.

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 03:32:34 AM

chakalakasp: Basically, the only people who deny that global climate change is occuring are people with political and financial agendas. Unfortunately, geophysical and climatalogical processes and feedbacks really doesn't give a flip what we think about what is going on. The laws of physics don't bend for pundits, and a hundred years from now when all the nations of the world are suffering food shortages, mass displacements, and geopolitical unrest because food just don't grow where it used to and because the global ocean heat conveyor currents change or disappear, well, all that ORLY Factor discussion about the "controversy" over "alleged climate change" will seem a lot less amusing than it does right now.

Could you post a source for these assertions or are you simply trying to influence people with your opinion?

user956		2005-12-20 03:40:09 AM

Funzo
What I do know is that when a man slips on ice in front of a public library, he's entitled to $25 million.

crypt0z0ic		2005-12-20 03:44:38 AM

mmmmmmm....frosty...... fries..... wonder if dq is open at 4 am.........

Gabbo is Fabbo		2005-12-20 03:45:55 AM

KingSizeLite is idiot America.

The bomb is at B		2005-12-20 03:46:32 AM

"People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a fully interactive climate system model," says NASCAR's David Lawrence, the lead author.

piperhaggis		2005-12-20 03:48:21 AM

chakalakasp

Human society can take a lot, but MODERN human society, as New Orleans demonstrates, is very dependent on everything being just so.

Well said sir.

/Too lazy to add my two cents
//Not impressed with the quality of flame-bait in this thread.

phthalic symbol		2005-12-20 03:54:25 AM

Axolotl

Noone's mentioned it, and since it's waaaaay down here, noone will read it. So it goes. But who ever said people with doctorates were exempt from being crazy, irrational, tree-hugging hippies?

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 03:59:55 AM

Gabbo is Fabbo

Haaa, that's funny coming from someone that doesn't know the difference between Baston and New Yawk!

piperhaggis		2005-12-20 04:08:16 AM

phthalic symbol:
Noone's mentioned it, and since it's waaaaay down here, noone will read it. So it goes. But who ever said people with doctorates were exempt from being crazy, irrational, tree-hugging hippies?

Dammit...should've gone to bed.

If you read any of the journal articles regarding global warming (and I'm not necessarily advocating it because they're not thrilling) you'll find that
a) Although there are some alarmists, the consensus is that humans are causing and will continue to cause global warming
b) Many papers focus as much on the sources of possible error as they do on the results

The worst "crazy irrational" folk are generally the media who jump all over results without including the caveats that come with them. We don't know exactly what future anthropogenic emissions will be, we can't forecast exactly all modes of natural variability and the inherent randomness of many features guarantees that we will never be 100% accurate however I'm inclined to agree with the broad contingent of people far more intelligent than me in that humans are having a negative (for us) effect on the environment. As chakalakasp pointed out, modern society is not well situated to adapt to even small climactic changes.

/Please nobody respond so I can go to bed
//etc...

farkerintx		2005-12-20 04:09:40 AM

mbrother:

It'd be nice if people only ranted about stuff they understood, but then all the pundits and politicians would be out of a job.

/worth repeating :)

Gabbo is Fabbo		2005-12-20 04:12:42 AM

KingSizeLite: I am from Boston but currently reside in New York City. I am a Red Sox fan.

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 04:14:43 AM

piperhaggis

You're wrong so you should go to bed anyway.

piperhaggis		2005-12-20 04:20:22 AM

KingSizeLite: You're wrong so you should go to bed anyway.

uh.....detroit sucks. Yeah.

/I'm oot.

meridian		2005-12-20 04:22:24 AM

The Singularity should arrive well before 2100 resulting in technologies able to clean up this whole farking mess.

Swagz		2005-12-20 04:28:44 AM

So are they saying that carbon deposits will be released into the atmosphere? Or are they trying to say that carbon a gas now?

/along those lines... If i drink water can i just say i'm drinking hydrogen from now on?

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 04:32:26 AM

piperhaggis Yep, the big "D" sucks.

Gabbo is Fabbo Why do people make statements that they are unable or unwilling to support with real data?

KingSizeLite		2005-12-20 04:48:09 AM

Bueller?...Bueller?...Bueller?..................

mbrother		2005-12-20 04:49:16 AM

Swagz:

So are they saying that carbon deposits will be released into the atmosphere? Or are they trying to say that carbon a gas now?

Blame the reporter for not writing a great article. Too common.

As I understand it, losing permafrost will put a lot of methane (CH4) into the atmosphere that is currently locked up. Methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and hence this is potentially a big problem.

Rupert Birkin		2005-12-20 04:55:17 AM

I believe the article... BUT I still think the guy in the first picture has a stiffy from hugging that tree behind him.

GiantRobot		2005-12-20 05:17:12 AM

2005-12-20 03:14:16 AM chakalakasp

Yes, well, the "real problem" with what you are suggesting is that most of the "celebrities" you speak of are meteorologists and climatologists with PhDs, including the National Academy of the Sciences, which includes a Nobel Prize winner.

Basically, the only people who deny that global climate change is occurring are people with political and financial agendas. Unfortunately, geophysical and climatalogical processes and feedbacks really doesn't give a flip what we think about what is going on. The laws of physics don't bend for pundits, and a hundred years from now when all the nations of the world are suffering food shortages, mass displacements, and geopolitical unrest because food just don't grow where it used to and because the global ocean heat conveyor currents change or disappear, well, all that ORLY Factor discussion about the "controversy" over "alleged climate change" will seem a lot less amusing than it does right now.

Nicely said. It's interesting that the only dissent from the consensus scientific opinion that climate change is real and due to human actions is from the US, who are also the highest producers of CO2 emissions.

/There is, of course, no correlation between these two facts.
//Anyone who says otherwise is clearly a damn communist.

crayola3		2005-12-20 06:59:10 AM

You want a genuine real estate bubble? Try buying a lot at this place ...say in 2-3 billion years. Only place that will be "habitable" by then.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-pluto.html

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.