Slashdot Mirror
Siberian Permafrost Melting
TeknoHog writes "New
Scientist Reports on a remarkable runaway process of global warming
that has been going on in Siberia for the past few years. 'Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3C in the last 40 years.' As a result, a million
square kilometers (the area of France and Germany) of frozen peat bog have
been found to be melting, according to Russian and international
scientists. This releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which
contributes to further global warming."
David Bellamy said, "We criticise people from the third world countries for not conserving their rainforests, but when it comes to our peat bogs which are actually a rarer habitat than the tropical rainforest, we are doing a much worse job". (The Times, Saturday November 25, 2000).
Exploitation by afforestation, conversion to agriculture and commercial peat extraction has destroyed much of our peat lands. In the last century we lost 75% of our blanket bogs and 94% of our raised bogs. Gardeners and horticulture used a staggering 2.55 million cubic metres of peat each year. In the UK there is less than 9,500 acres of near natural raised bog left.
So I guess the remaining question is how fast this 70 billion tonnes of methane is actually entering the atmosphere (adjust properly for acceleration effects)...
Come play Moral Decay!
And the polar ice cap is melting fast too... Most of us may live to see it all but disappear. Think of it as the mother of all ice cubes, and imagine what the melting is going to do --- dilute the 'drink' (which will change water density which will change ocean water flow, which will seriously mess with weather patterns) and once it finishes melting, it's function as a thermal buffer disappears and global warming will really start to hurt us.
I'm thinking that people are underestimating that last point.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
"The problem is that these phases normally last millions of years, and the transitions between them are often extremely slow"
Antarctic ice cores from the last 300,000 years show something different from what you claim.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/ historical02.jsp
The data that I have seen shows that the ice-age cycles last 100,000 years, not millions, and that the transitions can be abrupt. (data from 300,000 years of ice cores from Vostok, Antarctica)
Climate can exhibit abrupt shifts over large regions of the world. As the last glacial period was giving way to the current warm interglacial period, average temperatures in Greenland returned to glacial levels for more than 1,000 years. This unusual period, which is called the Younger Dryas, ended abruptly about 12,000 years ago. Evidence from an ice core drilled in Greenland indicates that temperatures there rose approximately 15F (8C) in less than a decade.
http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/1999/10 /20.html
"Scientists used to think that climate took hundreds, even thousands of years to change. Now we know better. Hi, I'm Dave Thurlow from the Mount Washington Observatory and this is The Weather Notebook.
An example of an extremely quick climate change came during a period of time known as the Younger Dryas, which happened right after the last ice age ended, about 12,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas itself lasted about 1,000 years. What we didn't know until recently was just how quickly the Younger Dryas started and stopped. In a period of less than 50 years, the climate from the eastern US and Canada to much of Europe went from climate conditions much like today's, to frigid readings more like the Ice Age, at least a ten degree Farenheit change. That's how it stayed for a thousand years - and then the climate flipped back to normal in as little as 20 years."
Are you just making up your claims?
Do you have data to back them up?
but has anyone taken into consideration that the earth has been warming up steadily for the past several thousand years?...the Earth fluctuates quite frequently (geologic time) in temperature... We very well may be causing this, which would be bad, but what if we are not?
Yes, the earth has been warming. The issue that is being raised here, however, is not the general warming trend, but the rate of warming. The claim (and there is an slowly increasing amount of data to back it up) is that the rate of warming has undergone a very dramatic increase in the last 100 years that is unprecendented in recent history (last 1000 years or so). The sudden rise correlates well with dramatic increases in atmospheric CO2 from the industrial revolution onward, and there are studies on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere that lend creedence to a causal rather than just correlated relationship.
Yes the planet goes through natural cycles of cooling and warming, and over time it can indeed fluctuate over huge temperatures. The risk is that we are disturbing the natural fluctuation and pushing the system out of its rough equilibrium. Systems often have tipping (bifurcation) points that can radically alter the behaviour of the system. A pendulum naturally swings back and forth steadily, but give it a hard enough push and it just starts spinning round and round. In essence we are giving the pendulum of warming and cooling a very strong push. Whether the pendulum will simply swing a little higher then settle back, or go over the top and start spinning in just one direction is certainly up for debate. Possibilities for feedback systems and induced dampening given the manner of warming are almost innumerable, and we are still working to understand the most obvious candidates well. There isn't reason to panic yet, but there is most certainly reason for concern.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
More than a little. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76
mt
High latitude methane may nevertheless work out to be a big deal. Softening the blow a bit is the fact that methane is shorter-lived in the atmosphere than CO2.
Some researchers believe that tundral methane releases play a big role in the termination of the recent glaciations.
mt
What!? Dude. Every single country in the UN signed the Kyoto protocol, including Russia. Two, the US and Australia, have since changed their minds and won't ratify it. There are only four other countries that haven't yet ratified it: Croatia, Kazakhstan, Monaco, and Zambia.
The Kyoto Protocol isn't some little thing. It's a pact between 141 countries to tackle global warming, even though the planet's #1 greenhouse gas polluter refuses to help.
I should buy some cement.
" What on Earth makes you think we can change it? " An American relative gave me a "Say you can and you will" poster (never seen anything comparable in any other country). World community except 1 is trying to prevent too drastic change.
"What on Earth makes you think we should change it?!?!"
Um.. disappearing glaciers? Insurance companies panicking ?
"Are you so arrogant as to think we have a say in it?"
Dutch researchers calculated China and India can reduce emissions even when the use of electricity will double. Key word: efficiency. Absent word: nuclear power.
climate change is a natural part of the planet's life cycle
*Slow* climate change is. As far as we can tell, the world has never seen anywhere close to this fast of global climate change. Perhaps you remember this famous graph. Note two key details:
* The biggest difference, as far as resolution will allow, is about 10C. It took about *20,000* years for this to happen. Just at our rate over the last century, that would take only 2000 years. At current rates? About 500 years.
* CO2 levels have an incredible correlation with temperature
dramatic warming following the last ice age
That was nothing - three degrees average in several thousand years? That's a walk in the park compared to what we have ongoing currently.
Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
it's simple. the ice melts in summer, exposing the previous years layer of dead moss. on top of that, a new layer grows. in the winter, that moss dies, and becomes the dead layer the next years layer grows on, and so on. this has been happening for thousands of years straight. sometimes much much longer.
the bottom layers of moss (pete, decomposed moss) haven't defrosted in millenia, and they now are. and staying that way. I think that's the news.
I haven't read the article, mind you, and this explanation is from memory of biology 10. so I may be waaaaay off. someone, feel free to confirm or deny this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat
hey, guess what. I didn't read the wikipedia article either, but I glanced at it, and I think it agrees. w00t!
Hunters and gatherers move on to more fertile land, and kill or are killed by those who already lived there. Unfortunately, when the killing uses modern weapons, it actually could be threatening the race and not just unlucky tribes this time.
Many civilisations were wiped out by climate shifts; history is written by the victors, and not just in war. For instance, several years of drought is thought to have put paid to the Mayans, a cold change wiped out the Vikings in Greenland.
But yes, humans and civilisation will survive, but many individuals may not; and the cost to non-human life will be much more severe.
Radiochemistry. For example,
Anyone have photos of this? any aerial ones I can overlay on google earth?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_galI used to be a sceptic. These days, I'm not so certain.
Methane moleculas are excited by UV-radiation, and excited molecula of methane can react with two O2 moleculas producing CO2 and H20.
one additional point of note. The sun's output has been increasing. So our "constant out from the sun" has been increasing, helping to contribute.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I visited Grenoble in the French Alps where they had the winter olympics in 1968. They still have some of the facilities there that they used in 1968, like the ski jump etc, but they don't have snow that low in the winter anymore to use any of them! The climate change has made what was a sure place to run the olympics 37 years ago into a place where you don't get any snow in the winter...
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
First off, yes, there were denials of warming by some neocons. At least until now:
w elt_naturschutz/bericht-47597.html
0 02377292_ocean13m.html8 .htme ws/community/friloc07.txt. html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/
Then there's the argument that, oh, the environment will just adjust and absorb the carbon. Nope:
http://www.sundayherald.com/51146
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/um
Oh, and why worry, it's just heat, right?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2949844
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/08/05/n
http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/pr/news/2005/news8474
Someone had to do it.
You overestimate the uncertainties. If you read things like the IPCC report you will see that there is actually a fairly strong consensus on the amount of warming (they give confidence limits); and fairly good models for the impact. Scientists always admit uncertainty - but uncertainty isn't synonymous with having no clue...
You then state that the economic impact will be devastating. That statment is probably fraught with more uncertainty than any of the climate change predictions. How do you know that the effect of limit greenhouse emissions won't actually improve our economy by stimulating greater efficiency and innovation?
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?