“The permafrost is thawing so fast, we scientists can’t keep up” - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15040184
Truth To Power wrote:
Scientists, or political hacks like Lyin' Michael Mann?

False. It was frozen during the Little Ice Age due to low solar activity, but it is not known if it was open during the Medieval Warm Period, or other millennium-scale warm periods like the Holocene Optimum. The first recorded single-season transit of the Northwest Passage occurred in way back 1944, following the cyclical warming of the 1920s and 30s. Then it froze again due to the cyclical cooling of the 1950s-60s.

Sure it is.

Nonsense.

Right back atcha.



The warming was first found by secret govt research, and secret Big Oil research, all the back in the 70s. While the theory was heavily attacked, thanks to oil money, it was never supplanted. Consensus was reached 2 decades ago. You can't stop shoveling manure anytime.

It's true, except for 1944.

"Now new discoveries suggest that the carbon will escape faster as the planet warms. From the unexpected speed of Arctic warming and the troubling ways that meltwater moves through polar landscapes, researchers now suspect that for every one degree Celsius rise in Earth’s average temperature, permafrost may release the equivalent of four to six years’ worth of coal, oil, and natural gas emissions—double to triple what scientists thought a few years ago. Within a few decades, if we don’t curb fossil fuel use, permafrost could be as big a source of greenhouse gases as China, the world’s largest emitter, is today."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... e-feature/

Welcome to the planet, since you're new here, I'd be glad to give you some introductory lessons.
Last edited by late on 07 Oct 2019 20:44, edited 2 times in total.
#15040191
Scientists Discover Record Methane Emission in the Russian Arctic

Researchers were able to see the greenhouse gas bubbling through the seawater.

A group of scientific researchers has discovered a record methane emission coming from the eastern Siberian Sea, expedition organizer Tomsk Polytechnic University (TPU) said in a statement.

The scientists found concentrations of the greenhouse gas — which can significantly influence the planet’s climate — up to nine times the global average.

This is the most powerful gas fountain I've ever seen,” said Igor Semiletov, the head of the expedition and a TPU professor. “No one has ever recorded anything like this before."

Nearly 80 scientists from Russia, China and Sweden traveled to the eastern Arctic to study methane emissions

The statement said that while the researchers determined the exact location of the greenhouse gas fountain using instruments, it was so large that they were also able to see it bubbling through the seawater with their own eyes
.
#15040410
Pants-of-dog wrote:Which plants?

All of them.
We are discussing the Arctic here.

Of which you obviously have zero (0) knowledge.

I guess I'll have to hold your hand through this one: How did the carbon get there in the first place? Think hard.
late wrote:The warming was first found by secret govt research, and secret Big Oil research, all the back in the 70s.

Nope. In the 70s, which I am old enough to remember well, it was widely known that the earth had been cooling for decades.
While the theory was heavily attacked, thanks to oil money, it was never supplanted.

What theory, specifically?
Consensus was reached 2 decades ago.

What consensus, specifically?
You can't stop shoveling manure anytime.

The anti-CO2 hysteria campaign is the second biggest scientific hoax in history. The biggest barrier to AI understanding climate is the systematic falsification of temperature data by NASA, NOAA, etc.
It's true, except for 1944.

It's conjecture, except for 1944.
"Now new discoveries suggest that the carbon will escape faster as the planet warms. From the unexpected speed of Arctic warming and the troubling ways that meltwater moves through polar landscapes, researchers now suspect that for every one degree Celsius rise in Earth’s average temperature, permafrost may release the equivalent of four to six years’ worth of coal, oil, and natural gas emissions—double to triple what scientists thought a few years ago. Within a few decades, if we don’t curb fossil fuel use, permafrost could be as big a source of greenhouse gases as China, the world’s largest emitter, is today."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... e-feature/

If atmospheric CO2 and methane were the major factors controlling global temperature (they aren't), higher CO2 and warmer temperatures would still be a net benefit.
Welcome to the planet, since you're new here, I'd be glad to give you some introductory lessons.

Sorry, son: unlike you, I actually know some atmospheric physics.
#15040423
Truth To Power wrote:All of them.

Of which you obviously have zero (0) knowledge.

I guess I'll have to hold your hand through this one: How did the carbon get there in the first place? Think hard.


The carbon was initially removed from the atmosphere over thousands of years by plants using photosynthesis.

This requires living plants.

What is trapped in the permafrost is not living plants. It is mostly dead roots. And when I say “mostly”, I mean that there are other dead parts of plants, but roots are more common. Everything is dead. That is the main point.

Dead plants do not photosynthesise. Thus, they do not trap carbon.
#15040426
Truth To Power wrote:
1) Nope. In the 70s, which I am old enough to remember well, it was widely known that the earth had been cooling for decades.

2) What theory, specifically?

3) What consensus, specifically?

4) The anti-CO2 hysteria campaign is the second biggest scientific hoax in history. The biggest barrier to AI understanding climate is the systematic falsification of temperature data by NASA, NOAA, etc.

5) It's conjecture, except for 1944.

6) If atmospheric CO2 and methane were the major factors controlling global temperature (they aren't), higher CO2 and warmer temperatures would still be a net benefit.

7) Sorry, son: unlike you, I actually know some atmospheric physics.



1) Thanks, that was my first actual laugh of the day. What I said was factual.

2) If you don't know, can't figure it out, you're in the wrong place.

3) Scientific consensus. Let me guess, you don't know what that is, either. Here's a hint, it happened in the 90s, and consensus never means everybody.

4) Thanks for the crazy.

5) It takes a certain amount of warming to make the passage navigable. So we pretty much know.

6) There are a lot of scientific disciplines that would disagree with that.

7) You don't know climatology, which is the topic under discussion. And you fell for Big Oil propaganda like a newb.
#15040451
Pants-of-dog wrote:The carbon was initially removed from the atmosphere over thousands of years by plants using photosynthesis.

When it wasn't frozen.
This requires living plants.

Which are there as long as it isn't frozen.
What is trapped in the permafrost is not living plants. It is mostly dead roots. And when I say “mostly”, I mean that there are other dead parts of plants, but roots are more common. Everything is dead. That is the main point.

No. The main point is that when it wasn't frozen it was a carbon sink, and when it isn't frozen in the future, it will be a carbon sink again.
Dead plants do not photosynthesise. Thus, they do not trap carbon.

As soon as it thaws, living plants will colonize it and start sequestering carbon again. They spread their seeds very prolifically. The net effect has to be negative carbon, or the carbon could never have been sequestered in the first place.
#15040734
Pants-of-dog wrote:I see.

That means you will now essay an absurd strawman. Watch:
So all the carbon that was slowly sunk into the ground over thousands of years will all magically be hoovered up by plants that will instantly colonise all of the Arctic, and absorb all those thousands of years worth of carbon in, what, a few months?

See?

No, what will happen is that in the few locations where permafrost melts, the sequestered carbon in dead plant material will slowly be released as fungi, bacteria, insects, etc. feed on it, incorporate some of it into their bodies and excrete the rest. Plants will spread and begin extracting carbon from the atmosphere and incorporating it into their bodies. The net result will be no significant increase in atmospheric methane or CO2 in the short term, and a slight net reduction in atmospheric CO2 over time.

You need to stop believing silly anti-CO2 scaremongering.
#15040741
late wrote:1) Thanks, that was my first actual laugh of the day. What I said was factual.

No. Temperature data have been falsified retroactively to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria theory.
2) If you don't know, can't figure it out, you're in the wrong place.

So you refuse to specify exactly what you mean by your misleading and disingenuous claims. That fits.
3) Scientific consensus. Let me guess, you don't know what that is, either. Here's a hint, it happened in the 90s, and consensus never means everybody.

So you refuse to specify exactly what you mean by your misleading and disingenuous claims. That fits.
4) Thanks for the crazy.

Fact.
5) It takes a certain amount of warming to make the passage navigable. So we pretty much know.

That it was open during the MWP? Quite likely.
6) There are a lot of scientific disciplines that would disagree with that.

Nope. Only political hacks like Lyin' Michael Mann.
7) You don't know climatology, which is the topic under discussion.

I know more about it than you, anyway.
And you fell for Big Oil propaganda like a newb.

<yawn> It wasn't Big Oil that froze the grass outside my house this morning, son, five weeks before the usual date of first frost.
#15040761
Pants-of-dog wrote:How long will the “net result” take?

Depends on how long it is before the climate changes again.
I.e. how long will the previously sequestered carbon be in the air before plants start groing in the Arctic in sufficient numbers to extract all this carbon?

Difficult to say. It might even be carbon-negative from the outset.
During that time, that carbon will have a warming effect on the climate.

But only an insignificant one.
#15040782
Truth To Power wrote:
1) No. Temperature data have been falsified retroactively to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria theory.

2) So you refuse to specify exactly what you mean by your misleading and disingenuous claims. That fits.


3) I know more about it than you, anyway.

4) <yawn> It wasn't Big Oil that froze the grass outside my house this morning, son, five weeks before the usual date of first frost.



1) The problem here is you don't pay attention. I was talking about how both the government and Big Oil found warming in the 70s.

"Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977... Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/


" A 1979 study of carbon dioxide's role in the climate... found "no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/history/



2) You don't get to rewrite sciences, any of them.

3) I'm not the guy saying he's smarter than thousands of scientists.

4) If you had wanted to prove your abyssal ignorance, that would be an excellent way to do it.
#15040785
Truth To Power wrote:No. Temperature data have been falsified retroactively to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria theory.


it was open during the MWP? Quite likely.

<yawn> It wasn't Big Oil that froze the grass outside my house this morning, son, fi]ve weeks before the usual date of first frost.

Forgive my jumping in on a first post.

Why do you think temperature records have been falsified?

Satellite record has always been modified to improve results based on understanding. Ship records had to be modified due to changes from moving from measuring the temp in a bucket to using the intake to the engine room. Land based methodology hasn't changed in a very long time.

The temperature data we have from the MWP shows a localised warming in the North Atlantic and isn't replicated across the proxy data elsewhere. We have evidence of extra warmth in southern greenland, but Alaska shows a cooler climate and so the chances that the Northwest passage was clear is pretty unlikely, if anything it is the North East passage that has evidence to suggest a greater summer melt and is also the location of first year rather than multi year ice which is more prone to melt.

The last comment seems odd when the discussion is global climate. Warm Arctic, Cold continent (WACCy) weather has been quite common in recent years. The temperature differential in the polar vortex has broken down due to the Arctic warming at a greater rate than the rest of the planet. This causes blocking highs that lead to parts of the planet being subjected to persistent warm or cool weather for longer periods.
#15040795
Pants-of-dog wrote:How long will the “net result” take?

I.e. how long will the previously sequestered carbon be in the air before plants start groing in the Arctic in sufficient numbers to extract all this carbon?

During that time, that carbon will have a warming effect on the climate.
Never,
The tilt of the the earth will always mean a shortened growing season and a long dark winter.
Meanwhile global warming will push more areas over 50C on a regular basis, killing soil bacteria and making plant life die off.

But this misses the he point, most of the he CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and this takes time, we can help by reducing CO2 emmisions and increasing trees cover.
The Irishman...

I don't think DeNiro's politics played into it, at[…]

Man, imagine if I'd never done hallucinogens. I c[…]

Bunk. As chair of an impeachment inquiry, Schiff […]

Julian Assange arrested in London

Tories will most def extradite Assange, they've n[…]