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."
Again, from all the science it seems like global warming will be a catastrophe, but it would be nice to find a few more bog people.
And yes, I have a degree in anthropology.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Not only that, but the waste products would be water and carbon dioxide. CO2 is of course a greenhouse gas, but one far less potent than methane. IIRC, it's a factor of about 100 to 1, which means that if one molecule of methane produces one molecule of CO2 when burned, you're solving 99% of the problem.
It is debatable whether 99% remediation is sufficient, but surely it's a good start. At the very least, it would be nice to use some of the energy produced in combustion to sequester the CO2 rather than dump it into the atmosphere.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
I think this is really worth a look....I find that the truth about global warming has become harder to discern because of the various agendas out there - to quote Micheal Crichton from 'State Of Fear' - 'But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.' Further interesting reading - http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html
To quote Micheal Crichton - " But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area."
Insightful? Juvenile. Where's that mod option.
In (a), you're assuming that this is a do or die. Either they will make it to shore, or they won't. In reality, the question isn't "is the planet going to die" it's "how badly is the planet going to die, and how badly has it already died". So yes you are right, either we can (b) start bailing (fixing the problem) or (actually the proper word here is AND, but you'd rather we forget that) we can take measurements to see how bad the damage is, how permanent the damage is, and how quickly we need to fix things.
We have what every reputable (non-political / lobby) scientist declares a problem or potential problem. If this is a true problem, we are constantly doing damage even now. You are advising that we double check previous findings before attempting to fix it, instead of attempting to fix it while double checking at the same time. Let me spell this out for you: If we try to fix it and it turns out not to be a problem, we lose billions or trillions of dollars (note: "lose" is of course not taking into account the reduced pollution which is a huge gain even if global warming doesn't exist). If we don't try to fix it while double checking, we lose the footing we need to combat the problem.
Here's another analogy. There is a colored plastic cup upside-down on a table. Underneath is either a mini-cupcake or termite digging into the table. Scientists hear scratching noises through the cup, but can't lift it. Either we fix the problem (smash the cup) which might ruin a cupcake if that is under it, however if it's a termite, we stop an infestation before it enters the table. If we wait around and double check our readings to confirm a termite, it will burrow into the table and squishing it will no longer be possible.
or
c) patch up the leaks and keep working, cause if they don't make a catch on this trip they'll be broke. If they make a catch they might be able to afford patch materials for the next trip AND have money to feed their families.
I believe that's the current method being used.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
On a scale of tens of thousands of years it's obvious that the planet has a cyclic climate, oscillating between ice ages and periods of warmer temperatures than we have now.
There is a much shorter climate-related transgression cycle for most coasts. In the Netherlands geology, archeology, and history suggest roughly the following cycle for the last few millenia:
Duinkerke III B (1000 - 1200)
Duinkerke III A (800 - 1000)
Duinkerke II (250 - 600)
Duinkerke I (500 - 200 BC)
Duinkerke 0 (1500 - 1000 BC)
Calais IV B (2150 - 1800 BC)
Calais IV A2 (2450 - 2150 BC)
Calais IV A1 (2700 - 2450 BC)
Calais III (3300 - 2700 BC)
The recent stability of coastlines is clearly exceptional. The map of Ptolemaeus for instance, based on Duinkerke I data, shows most of the Netherlands, a part of Belgium, the east of England, and the Venice area in Italy missing (consistent with a modest rise of the sea level).
Peat formation occurs only in specific cold, wet, and acidic conditions. If land along the coast contains a large amount of peat, a few degrees of warming causing just a slight rise of the sea level, also causes the land to sink. In a few decades land can sink into the sea or turn into a lake, as our ancestors have frequently seen happening in the early middle ages. In 2003 we had two small floods in the Netherlands caused by collapsing peat dikes because of the unusually dry weather.
In the case of Siberia there is another major catalyst for quick change: melting of frozen water in peat. A little change in climate can have great consequences, apparently.
If we have reached some sort of tipping point then hold on. Humans will either learn to adapt or we'll die. I happen to think we'll adapt just fine.
Me too, but I am starting to get slightly worried about the future value of my house.
The Soviet Communists produced more oil during the Cold War than anyone else. The Chinese Communists are consuming more oil than ever before, becoming a net importer in the 1990s, rather than exporter: this is one reason oil prices are higher than ever before. And it's just going to get worse. Meanwhile, your Capitalist heroes in the White House have you and I spending our tax dollars on their war in Iraq, which is a total disaster, for no reason other than to spend our tax dollars in Iraq (OK, and to keep us scared and dependent on their Daddy State).
So you, sick fool, are laughing. Making posts with no content, just some inane partisan crack. While talking about "communists", as if the real ones weren't part of the problem, in collusion with your oil corporate government heroes. When are you going to shut up and let the adults talk about how to salvage the wreck your boys have made? Or at least enlist and go to Iraq as a soldier to "support the troops", instead of just slapping a magnetic sticker (made of oil, in China) on the back of your suburban 12MPG SUV?
--
make install -not war
No. There are at this point exactly three possible reasons that somebody could vote Republican:
Me? I am sick of entitlements.
And so you vote for the party *most* commited to them?!?
That puts you squarely in category 2.
If anybody else doubts this, let's hear your reasons. It's really pretty simple to put them in one or more of those categories.