Slashdot Mirror
Faster Global Warming From Permafrost Melt
jc42 writes, "A recent study published in Nature documents the accelerating release of methane from melting permafrost. Methane is a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide, so this may signal more rapid warming in the near future. If you don't subscribe to Nature, the Guardian has a good summary of the piece." It's not just Siberian permafrost. One of the major concerns is bogs — they account for a relatively small percent of total surface space, but have a large amount of carbon locked up. No one is sure if the greenhouse effect will cause them to lock up more, or to release more carbon.
One of the major concerns is bogs -- they account for a relatively small percent of total surface space, but have a large amount of carbon locked up.
They also have a fair number of bogmen in them. Thanks to the highly acidic and low oxygen environment of bogs, the softer parts of animals (skin, hair, organs) remain intact while the bones dissolve. What you end up with is essentially a nice "sack of meat." Totally offtopic, but pretty fascinating stuff, imho.
This guy's the limit!
The title to the story is "Faster Global Warming from Permafrost Melt" yet TFA & even the extract say
"No one is sure if the greenhouse effect will cause them to lock up more, or to release more carbon"...
Sensationalist titles like this are why I still have my doubts about global warning. Every time any climate data is released, the global warning crowd comes out with another sensationalist global warning blurb.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Here we've got a positive feedback loop. The warmer it gets, the more CH4 is presumably released from permafrost.
There are also negative feedback loops. The warmer it gets, the more water evaporates, the more clouds there are, and clouds reflect sunlight. On the other hand, clouds can also hold heat in, and water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
If you want to make forecasts you have to put numbers on all those effects, and they have to be fairly precise numbers or you get hit by the uncertainties of (approximate large number minus other approximate large number). You've also got to account for discontinuities, things that only start happening at threshold temperatures (permafrost melting) or that stop happening after some amount of C)2 gets absorbed (oceanic absorption).
That's where all your tax money is going. It's paying to send highly trained people to uncomfortable places to get hard facts.
That also tells you that it's taken a huge amount of field data to get general agreement on what our CO2 output does to climate.
Make energy expensive.
http://www.whynot.net/ideas/2195
People in hot areas will start adding insulation, whitewashing their houses, adding trees and ivy people in cold areas will start adding insulation, heat pumps etc.
Deleted
Yes, plus the Earth doesn't really like being anthropomorphized all that much, so if you won't stop for environmental science, stop for the sake of Earth's feelings.
The Guardian says "This means that a kilogram of methane warms the planet's atmosphere 23 times as much as the same amount of carbon dioxide."
A gas can not warm the planet.
So neither can a blanket warm you, then.
Any other sophistries you'd like to share?
You can't take the sky from me...
The title to the story is "Faster Global Warming from Permafrost Melt" yet TFA & even the extract say
/. submitter, who is in any case referring to uncertainty over bogs, not the melting permafrost.
"No one is sure if the greenhouse effect will cause them to lock up more, or to release more carbon"...
Um no. First of all, you obviously haven't read TFA because it doesn't say this. It was apparently written by the
Sensationalist titles like this are why I still have my doubts about global warning.
You decide whether or not to accept scientific studies based on Slashdot headlines? We're in more trouble than I thought.