“The permafrost is thawing so fast, we scientists can’t keep up” - Page 3 - 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.
#15040799
BeesKnee5 wrote:We have known that CO2 absorbs energy and emmits it in the infra-red spectrum since the 1850s.
Tyndall's experiments even tell us how much temperature will rise based on the levels of CO2. His measurements were pretty damn accurate.

False. Tyndall's experiments only tell us how much temperature WOULD rise based on the levels of CO2 IF there were no other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas about 100 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, already pretty much saturates the absorption spectrum of CO2. So increased CO2 cannot, repeat, CANNOT have the claimed effects. The causal link between temperature and CO2 is the other way around: higher temperature drives CO2 out of the oceans by reducing its solubility in sea water. That's why CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record.
BeesKnee5 wrote:The tilt of the the earth will always mean a shortened growing season and a long dark winter.

:lol: So, you think the carbon was sequestered there when the earth's axial tilt was lower??
Meanwhile global warming will push more areas over 50C on a regular basis, killing soil bacteria and making plant life die off.

That is absurd nonsense with no basis in empirical science.
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.

Tree cover is increasing naturally, thanks to fertilization by increased CO2.
BeesKnee5 wrote:Why do you think temperature records have been falsified?

Because they have been exposed as fraudulent:

https://realclimatescience.com/understa ... ure-fraud/
Satellite record has always been modified to improve results based on understanding.

No, to prevent 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.

Now they are using buoys, and falsifying the data by changing the mix.
Land based methodology hasn't changed in a very long time.

False. More and more of the land data is simply made up:

https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/
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.

That's just false:

https://kaltesonne.de/mapping-the-medieval-warm-period/
The last comment seems odd when the discussion is global climate.

I can't personally check the temperatures reported from other places.
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.

There's always an explanation for why global warming somehow makes the weather colder....
BeesKnee5 wrote:You do realise I can release CO2 from a fire extinguisher into a sealed container to measure the radiant energy of CO2. I can do the same using steam.

We can also accurately measure the levels of these molecules in our atmosphere and calculate their net effect.

Yes, and the net effect of 400ppm of CO2 on IR absorption in a gas mix similar to tropospheric air is negligible.
BeesKnee5 wrote:As to the CO2 escaping sea water this will only happen if
A. CO2 in the water is at a greater equalibrium concentration than the air.

Which happens when rising temperature reduces its solubility in water.
B. The water reaches saturation level.

No, just disequilibrium.
We know A isn't true and I have run a planted tank and 20C and 25C and measured CO2 levels in water at 3-5ppm when the atmosphere is 400ppm and I have injected CO2 up to 50ppm and the CO2 hasn't reached saturation.

What on earth do you incorrectly imagine that proves?
It's a common theory but the reality is while CO2 in the atmosphere rises then the ocean will absorb it to reach equalibrium, creating carbonic acid and therefore becoming more acidic.

Sea water is not acidic, it is basic, and it will remain basic.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 09 Oct 2019 20:31, edited 3 times in total.
#15040801
Truth To Power wrote:False. Tyndall's experiments only tell us how much temperature WOULD rise based on the levels of CO2 IF there were no other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas about 100 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, already pretty much saturates the absorption spectrum of CO2. So increased CO2 cannot, repeat, CANNOT have the claimed effects. The causal link between temperature and CO2 is the other way around: higher temperature drives CO2 out of the oceans by reducing its solubility in sea water. That's why CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record.


You do realise I can release CO2 from a fire extinguisher into a sealed container to measure the radiant energy of CO2. I can do the same using steam.

We can also accurately measure the levels of these molecules in our atmosphere and calculate their net effect.
#15040805
As to the CO2 escaping sea water this will only happen if
A. CO2 in the water is at a greater equalibrium concentration than the air.
Or
B. The water reaches saturation level.

We know A isn't true and I have run a planted tank and 20C and 25C and measured CO2 levels in water at 3-5ppm when the atmosphere is 400ppm and I have injected CO2 up to 50ppm and the CO2 hasn't reached saturation.

It's a common theory but the reality is while CO2 in the atmosphere rises then the ocean will absorb it to reach equalibrium, creating carbonic acid and therefore becoming more acidic.
#15040814
Truth To Power wrote:Which happens when rising temperature reduces its solubility in water.

No, just disequilibrium.

What on earth do you incorrectly imagine that proves?

Sea water is not acidic, it is basic, and it will remain basic.


If you've opened a bottle if fizzy drink to reduce the pressure then you can see water saturated in CO2.
If typical sea water has a pH 8 then it's dissolved CO2 is 0.1ppm.
The saturation level of sea water is 10ppm at 50C.
We are on an order of magnitude that means a rise in temp isn't going to reach saturation without killing everything in the water.
I never said sea water is acidic, I said the absorption of CO2 makes it more acidic ( less alkali if you prefer)
#15040828
Truth To Power wrote:]
That's just false:

https://kaltesonne.de/mapping-the-medieval-warm-period/


So I took one of their pointers at random and went to the research directly rather than rely on their link to an abstract.

https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/40266/16/ ... ada%29.pdf

The claim is that increase in total carbon proves warming.

I suggest you have a read, lake that over time became a wetland and during the period of assumed warming the TOC was relatively stable and is higher in the last hundred years than the period 950-1250AD

You are welcome to point me to the evidence in the paper that proves warming in the MWP but I'm not exactly seeing evidence of an increase in plant life caused by warming and nothing like the recent switch from plants to trees in the last 100-150 years. Looks bit weak to me, I wonder how many more set such a low bar for their evidence and yet you think it proves my claim false.


Image
#15041017
BeesKnee5 wrote:If you are going to forever edit earlier posts then it makes it impossible to discuss each others views and understanding.

I suspect you know this and it's deliberate

It indeed is deliberate, to comply with the forum rule against double posting that you have been violating. The mods have in the past deleted what they call, "double posts" -- multiple consecutive posts by the same member in the same thread -- which are exactly what you have been doing.
#15041028
Truth To Power wrote:It indeed is deliberate, to comply with the forum rule against double posting that you have been violating. The mods have in the past deleted what they call, "double posts" -- multiple consecutive posts by the same member in the same thread -- which are exactly what you have been doing.


I welcome their choice to delete/merge double posts should they choose.
They only become double due to your failure to respond in the timeline, preventing me from being notified of your response
#15041073
BeesKnee5 wrote:So I took one of their pointers at random and went to the research directly rather than rely on their link to an abstract.

https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/40266/16/ ... ada%29.pdf

That's not a very good example, as it is in the arctic. There is general agreement that the MWP affected northern latitudes, the dispute is over whether it was global, and also affected southern latitudes.
The claim is that increase in total carbon proves warming.

I suggest you have a read, lake that over time became a wetland and during the period of assumed warming the TOC was relatively stable and is higher in the last hundred years than the period 950-1250AD

False. TOC rose sharply about 1300ya, was elevated for a period of more than 700y including the ~500y period of the MWP, and then fell sharply in the LIA. It is higher in the last 100y than in the MWP because THERE HAS BEEN FAR MORE CO2 IN THE AIR than during the MWP, not because it has been warmer. You have committed the same invalidated proxy fallacy that many climate alarmist "scientists" commit.
You are welcome to point me to the evidence in the paper that proves warming in the MWP

I didn't claim "proof," just evidence. You don't seem to be very familiar with the standards of empirical science. The increase in TOC coinciding with the MWP is that evidence.
but I'm not exactly seeing evidence of an increase in plant life caused by warming and nothing like the recent switch from plants to trees in the last 100-150 years. Looks bit weak to me, I wonder how many more set such a low bar for their evidence and yet you think it proves my claim false.

I never claimed "proof," just evidence, which that paper certainly is.
#15041074
BeesKnee5 wrote:I welcome their choice to delete/merge double posts should they choose.

But will continue violating the forum rule...?
They only become double due to your failure to respond in the timeline, preventing me from being notified of your response

No, they become double because you post a new message rather than adding to your previous one. I am not on the forum 24/7, so you can't expect me to respond quickly, or even in the same week.
#15041079
Truth To Power wrote:But will continue violating the forum rule...?

No, they become double because you post a new message rather than adding to your previous one. I am not on the forum 24/7, so you can't expect me to respond quickly, or even in the same week.
Congrats on the double post to criticise my double post.

Lol!!

Now back to the science.
I stated there is evidence that Alaska was cooler during the MWP. This evidence is included in the pointers from the cool sun site you shared. However choosing another of the pointers in the area clearly does not show evidence of warming. It is an assumption by the reader and in no way supported by the research.

The claim increase in TOC as evidence of warmer climate is contradicted by the paper.

"The absence of emergent aquatic plant macrofossils since 1500 cal yrs BP indicates disappearance of the intra-polygonal pond.
Epigenetic permafrost aggraded in the initial phase of IWP development after lake drainage. Continuous downward refreezing of the talik is indicated as heavy isotopes become progressively depleted, while d-excess values concurrently increase (Fig. 6). We argue for closed-system freezing as it has been shown by Fritz et al.(2011) in ground ice."

In English, a pond dried up in cold dry conditions and froze over with permafrost which deposited organic matter, this slowly froze the underlying lake bed. The increase in TOC is trapped carbon, not evidence of an accumulation over centuries due to growth in warmer conditions.

I do not have the time nor inclination to go through the other papers, but if that is your evidence you are on extremely thin ice. Next time you use a link to claim my assertion is false then I suggest you do use one that has proof and not a conspiracy site that deliberately misrepresents the researchers being quoted.

There is a complete misunderstanding of environment here.
Trees are sparse in the Arctic circle not because of CO2 levels, but because of low light for long periods and frozen ground mean that higher order plant life struggle, which is why moss and lichen dominate.

An increase in CO2 is only part of the equation, higher CO2 reduces the need for RuBisCO to sequester CO2 and so reduces the energy cost for growth. It does not improve nutrient poor soil, frozen ground, increase light between November and February or get the sun above 45 degrees in the summer.


I will finish this post with a question to try and get a better handle on what you beleive
Do you think soil temperatures are currently rising and do you think there is evidence of soil temperatures rising over the last say 50 years?

If you do then what do you attribute this to?
#15041249
BeesKnee5 wrote:I stated there is evidence that Alaska was cooler during the MWP.

Cooler than what?
This evidence is included in the pointers from the cool sun site you shared.

Yes, some of the papers showed cooling. But more than ten times as many showed warming. That's what a preponderance of evidence means.
However choosing another of the pointers in the area clearly does not show evidence of warming.

Only the red pointers show warming. The blue show cooling, the others dry or wet conditions.
It is an assumption by the reader and in no way supported by the research.

Garbage. The red pointers show the geographical locations of proxy studies that indicate warming in the MWP.
The claim increase in TOC as evidence of warmer climate is contradicted by the paper.

No it isn't.
"The absence of emergent aquatic plant macrofossils since 1500 cal yrs BP indicates disappearance of the intra-polygonal pond.
Epigenetic permafrost aggraded in the initial phase of IWP development after lake drainage. Continuous downward refreezing of the talik is indicated as heavy isotopes become progressively depleted, while d-excess values concurrently increase (Fig. 6). We argue for closed-system freezing as it has been shown by Fritz et al.(2011) in ground ice."

In English, a pond dried up in cold dry conditions and froze over with permafrost which deposited organic matter, this slowly froze the underlying lake bed. The increase in TOC is trapped carbon, not evidence of an accumulation over centuries due to growth in warmer conditions.

Nope. It says the pond drained, not that it dried up, and says nothing whatever about permafrost depositing organic matter, which is impossible. The carbon had to come from somewhere. There is only one way it could get there: plant sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in conditions more favorable to growth. In that climate, that means warmer temperatures. The progressive downward freezing obviously happened during the LIA, as the TOC graphic clearly shows.
I do not have the time nor inclination to go through the other papers, but if that is your evidence you are on extremely thin ice.

Nope. The massive preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence showing the MWP was global refutes all your nonsense.
Next time you use a link to claim my assertion is false then I suggest you do use one that has proof

Evidence. Which the site I linked to has in spades.
and not a conspiracy site that deliberately misrepresents the researchers being quoted.

Disgraceful. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. It is in no sense a "conspiracy site," and you have offered no evidence whatever -- none -- that it misrepresents any of the research. Indeed, as I showed above, it is you who have misrepresented the research.
There is a complete misunderstanding of environment here.

Yes. By you.
Trees are sparse in the Arctic circle not because of CO2 levels, but because of low light for long periods and frozen ground mean that higher order plant life struggle, which is why moss and lichen dominate.

Irrelevant. There is a dearth of atmospheric CO2 -- the Ice Age level was getting close to shutting down plant life -- so whatever plant life exists there, more CO2 enables it to sequester more carbon.
An increase in CO2 is only part of the equation, higher CO2 reduces the need for RuBisCO to sequester CO2 and so reduces the energy cost for growth. It does not improve nutrient poor soil, frozen ground, increase light between November and February or get the sun above 45 degrees in the summer.

Irrelevant.
Do you think soil temperatures are currently rising and do you think there is evidence of soil temperatures rising over the last say 50 years?

I don't think there's much divergence between soil temperatures and surface air temperatures, which rose rapidly in the last 30 years of the 20th century because of sustained high solar activity, but haven't changed much since then. All the warming since then has been contrived by altering, cherry-picking, manipulating or fabricating temperature data. In the last three years, air and soil temperatures have fallen.
If you do then what do you attribute this to?

The sun.
#15041284
Truth To Power wrote:Yes, some of the papers showed cooling. But more than ten times as many showed warming. That's what a preponderance of evidence means.
However choosing another of the pointers in the area clearly does not show evidence of warming.
Only the red pointers show warming. The blue show cooling, the others dry or wet conditions.
Garbage. The red pointers show the geographical locations of proxy studies that indicate warming in the MWP. .


I clearly stated that I chose a pointer that claimed to show evidence of warming.

It will therefore be no surprise for you to discover it was red and your above post is both pointless and self evident.

Nope. It says the pond drained, not that it dried up, and says nothing whatever about permafrost depositing organic matter, which is impossible. The carbon had to come from somewhere. There is only one way it could get there: plant sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in conditions more favorable to growth. In that climate, that means warmer temperatures. The progressive downward freezing obviously happened during the LIA, as the TOC graphic clearly shows.

The lake drained and became wetland between 3000-4000 years ago, the remaining polygonal ponds dried up 1500 years ago. It's all in the paper.

I suggest you look up the word aggraded and then try to understand why the TOC increased at the same time the permafrost formed.

I assume you didn't look at fig 6 which shows evidence the ground was frozen in permafrost throughout the MWP by way of heavy isotopes being degraded and not replaced by biological activity. I also assume you didn't look at fig 10 that shows no significant increase in pollen at the point TOC increased, disapproving your opinion that the source was increased plant growth.

Show me where in the graph it shows freezing only in LIA because I see a continuous fall until 150 years ago.
Image

.
Nope. The massive preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence showing the MWP was global refutes all your nonsense.

Which is why you chose a site falsely using peer reviewed papers as evidence to support a claim that the paper does not support.
You have been caught out my friend and I have shown you that you are being duped and yet you still cling on desperately to the lie rather than admit it.

All rather sad.

Evidence. Which the site I linked to has in spades.
Disgraceful. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. It is in no sense a "conspiracy site," and you have offered no evidence whatever -- none -- that it misrepresents any of the research. Indeed, as I showed above, it is you who have misrepresented the research.
.


I am pointing directly at the research, you appear to be inventing a version based on preconception and ignorance

Irrelevant. There is a dearth of atmospheric CO2 -- the Ice Age level was getting close to shutting down plant life -- so whatever plant life exists there, more CO2 enables it to sequester more carbon.

We are not in an ice age and 180ppm is certainly not close to the end of plant life.
My point is only irrelevant of you do not understand why there is currently many more trees at lower latitudes and fewer at higher latitudes, it ain't CO2.

There are a couple of things to address here. First of why there have been trees in the Arctic in the past, this is due to the Milakovitch cycles. The earth's orbit and tilt are not fixed they have a pattern. The change in the earth's tilt means that at certain times we have a larger/ smaller contrast between summer and winter, when it is smaller then a smaller area of the poles stays frozen, more light is available to plants in the winter months and temperatures do not drop as far as they do at the other extreme.

Secondly, eventually this planet will no longer support plant life, that time had not yet come and when it does there will in all probability be plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its something that often gets missed. The suns evolution means solar output increases over millions of years. To achieve today's temperatures 400 million years ago required CO2 levels much, much higher as solar output was lower

I don't think there's much divergence between soil temperatures and surface air temperatures, which rose rapidly in the last 30 years of the 20th century because of sustained high solar activity, but haven't changed much since then. All the warming since then has been contrived by altering, cherry-picking, manipulating or fabricating temperature data. In the last three years, air and soil temperatures have fallen.


There is a huge difference, soil temperature is more stable and rises/ decreases slower. It is therefore a better indicator of long term trend than air temperature. Smoothing out ENSO etc. It is why I asked you. Interesting that you think the recent weak solar cycles are a cause of warming, especially the last 2-3 years which fall in the solar minimum.

That soil temp falling :)

Image

Yep, definitely the sun
Image
#15042183
Atlantis wrote:Isn't the methane emitted from the permafrost regions even a bigger problem? Recent reports also suggest that methane emissions from fracking in the US is far worse than the industry wants to admit. That's probably why Trump slashed regulations requiring monitoring of methane emissions from fracking wells.


To wait on piliticians who are corrupted by the oil-lobby is a dream. We can hope the private companies will fast enough find solutions: E-Cars are on the streets, cheaper solar energy and today produces the United Kindom more renewable energy then with fossil fuels.


I read in the book "Fully Automated Luxury Communism" if the Methan brakes out of the permafrost we will have the Apocalypse 6 degree Celsius warmer and everything with lungs dies, due Methan concentration and 200 meter higher sea level

East Siberian Sean is Boiling
https://www.ecowatch.com/siberia-sea-bo ... belltitem3

Let us hope capitalism finds fast enough solutions
#15042270
BeesKnee5 wrote:
Earlier in this thread I believe.



The Nobel committee should be notified.


"Increasingly frequent and severe forest fires could burn generations-old carbon stored in the soils of boreal forests, according to results from the Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) funded by NASA’s Earth Science Division. Releasing this previously buried carbon into the atmosphere could change these forests’ balance of carbon gain and loss, potentially accelerating warming."

“By defining and analyzing ‘legacy carbon,’ this paper offers a new way to think about long-sequestered carbon stocks in boreal forests and how vulnerable they are to being burned during increasingly frequent and severe wildfires”
NASA


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2905/bore ... il-carbon/
#15042286
late wrote:The Nobel committee should be notified.


"Increasingly frequent and severe forest fires could burn generations-old carbon stored in the soils of boreal forests, according to results from the Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) funded by NASA’s Earth Science Division. Releasing this previously buried carbon into the atmosphere could change these forests’ balance of carbon gain and loss, potentially accelerating warming."

“By defining and analyzing ‘legacy carbon,’ this paper offers a new way to think about long-sequestered carbon stocks in boreal forests and how vulnerable they are to being burned during increasingly frequent and severe wildfires”
NASA


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2905/bore ... il-carbon/


Sadly not just forest fires and the peat fires they can cause.

'Evidence suggests that 5–15% of the vast pool of soil carbon stored in northern permafrost ecosystems could be emitted as greenhouse gases by 2100 under the current path of global warming. '

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0387-6
Canadian Federal Election

Anyone who wishes can look at your post history an[…]

Ukrainegate

Lmbo Turkey just openly mocking President Deals n[…]

This incident may seem, on a diplomatic scale, to[…]

My cousin went to medical school in Mexico. His[…]