Slashdot Mirror


Permafrost Loss Greater Threat Than Deforestation

Pierre Bezukhov writes "Emissions from thawing permafrost may contribute more to global warming than deforestation this century, according to commentary in the journal Nature. Arctic warming of 7.5 degrees Celsius (13.5 degrees Fahrenheit) this century may unlock the equivalent of 380 billion tons of carbon dioxide as soils thaw, allowing carbon to escape as CO2 and methane, University of Florida and University of Alaska biologists wrote today in Nature. Two degrees of warming would release a third of that, they said. The Arctic is an important harbinger of climate change because the United Nations calculates it's warming at almost twice the average rate for the planet. The study adds to pressure on United Nations climate treaty negotiators from more than 190 countries attending two weeks of talks in Durban, South Africa that began Nov. 28."

22 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Clathrate gun hypothesis by c0lo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If clathrate gun hypothesis is correct, the things may become interesting during our lifetime (which may be a shorter one).

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:Clathrate gun hypothesis by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The simple rebuttal is why hasn't the "clathrate gun" gone off some time in the past 650,000 years? From the link:

      The ice core data also shows that CO2 and methane levels have been remarkably stable in Antarctica--varying between 300 ppm and 180 ppm--over that entire period and that shifts in levels of these gases took at least 800 years, compared to the roughly 100 years in which humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels to their present high. "We have added another piece of information showing that the timescales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are extremely short compared to the natural time cycles of the climate system," says Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern in Switzerland, who led the research.

      There have been several shifts from glacial to interglacial climates during that time. My view is that if massive methane releases were a threat now, then we would have seen something similar during one of these times.

    2. Re:Clathrate gun hypothesis by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You see... I willing to bet the last 650,000 years didn't see an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico either.

      You might lose that bet. A LOT of oil spills into the gulf every year naturally, and it wouldn't be surprising if there were a rupture after an earthquake that released a lot of oil at the same time.......at least once in the last 650,000 years.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by war4peace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's because both politicians AND industrialists just see lots of fast profit from permafrost thawing, namely more usable land (and whatever might reside beneath).
    What would happen with the planet 100 years from now is irrelevant to them; they will be all dead at that time.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  3. Re:Jobs by DanDD · · Score: 4, Informative

    Permafrost makes it harder to dig, hurting the economy and killing jobs. That's why everyone hates it.

    Permafrost gives villages something firm to set buildings and roads on. When the permafrost melts, areas typically turn into a marshy bog. This increases the cost of living, travel, infrastructure, etc. The increased insects increase disease.

    If you want to live and work in a bog swarming with bugs, go for it. Perhaps you can explain the benefits to the rather annoyed polar bears, or to all the farmers in Texas, Oklahoma, and most of Colorado and Kansas who will see their land turned into an arid desert.

    --
    "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
  4. Flawed data by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny

    Arctic temperatures are *not* rising. The data is flawed because the sensors are all set up near Santa's Village, which has been experiencing massive growth over the past few decades as increasing numbers of spoiled kids get more gifts each year. The resulting urban heat island effect (amplified by primitive and inefficient elven HVAC technology) has severely skewed all the Arctic numbers, and the rising temps are just an illusion.

  5. I don't even read these stories anymore by paiute · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because 1. Man is influencing the climate, 2. Most of this change is going to be bad, 3. There is no political or social will to change our current behavior, and 4. Once shit hits the ecological fan, those with resources will shield themselves from the effects and those without resources will be fucked.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:I don't even read these stories anymore by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There really isn't any point.

      1) The majority of people are split across party lines and anti-science.
      2) Religious nutbags are everywhere that have the sole justification that climate science is wrong because scientists calculated the age of the Earth incorrectly, and that Man could not possibly affect God's creation.
      3) The absolutely ludicrous position is put forward constantly that business and economic considerations must be factored in. That's like arguing on a sinking ship about the value of the cargo.

      Irrational and illogical behavior coupled with outright greed and shortsightedness makes it impossible to affect change through legislation. I honestly could not give a fuck about any further research. It does not take a rocket scientist (or a climatologist) to figure out that we have an affect on our environment through our actions with 7 billion people on the planet.

      There is one person that I control. Myself. To that end, I do what I can to minimize my own footprint on this planet, and that is all I can do.

      Talking is bullshit because nobody is capable of listening, and anyone that does actually listen, is marginalized and has practically no effect. You nailed that. Social will is non-existent. Basically, no one is willing to suffer to get things back to where they need to be. That goes for a lot more than the environment.

      I can explain, politely, why it is such a bad idea to buy bottled water, etc. but friends and family still do it anyways because of convenience. I actually got asked why I did not have bottled water from a guest like I was a bad host. I pointed to the glasses and the RO system and this person was indignant because that seemed like more work than getting a bottle from the refrigerator.

      Technology and science is not our problem. We are the problem because of how we act globally as a group.

  6. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by Llyr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not sure the Canadian North can count as "more usable land" once thawed -- it's largely frozen muskeg swamp at the moment, somewhat usable due to permafrost since at least that way you don't sink into it.
    There's some interest in the northern seabed for gas exploration.

  7. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not sure the Canadian North can count as "more usable land" once thawed -- it's largely frozen muskeg swamp at the moment, somewhat usable due to permafrost since at least that way you don't sink into it.

    There's some interest in the northern seabed for gas exploration.

    Great bit on the construction of the trans-Alaskan highway, in Mitchner's Alaska. When they tore the top layer off the tundra their equipment, paving, everything sunk into mud. The only way to build roads was on top of the Permafrost. Nobody going to do any mining, drilling or anything else if the ground is thawed and you have the biggest plain of mud in the world between you and your dreamed of profits.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  8. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Somebody is conspicuously absent from the Kyoto Protocol.

    America, fuck yeah.

    In Germany you are taxed to death (by 'merkin standards) and the price of petrol is over 12$US per gallon - yet they have among the highest standard of living and the most robust economy in Europe.

    When the people in Washington DC hear about raising the cost of petrol, so people won't waste it so stupidly on SUVs in the city and frivolous trips in the auto, they howl that it will destroy the American Way of Life and the Economy.

    Fucking daft, scared "leaders" America is dynamic and can adapt, same as Germany did. Charge $10/gal at the pump and people will stop depending so heavily on petrol that the country has to go to war over it.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  9. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by scamper_22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm neither a politician or an industrialist...

    1. There have been reports that we really can't stop global warming anyways. It is "too late".

    2. In as much as there are downsides to global warming (floods, heat deaths...), there are benefits (more usable land up north, easier shipping, fewer cold deaths...)

    It might be a good idea to just start dealing with a warmer planet. Embrace the good effects. Try to counter the bad ones (build levies/flood protection, move from low lying area...) and address our pollution as technology and time permits.

    What will happen to the planet 100 years from now? I really don't think the planet will be in devastating shape... even with a few degrees warming. Life will go on. Don't think I'm underestimating here. I"m sure many parts of the world will feel the huge impacts, especially coastal cities when sea levels rise. But life will go on and we will adapt, even if we have to evacuate Miami.

  10. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before we commence with the hand wringing, shouldn't we first show there's a problem that will get substantially worse in a mere century? You can't expect someone to change their behavior based on supposition.

  11. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by haruchai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, life will go on and we will adapt but a lot of us will find life to be even nastier, more brutish and much shorter than it is now. The human race is not going to die out but I think a lot of the progress of the 20th century will be reversed, especially in the area of international cooperation. And, if the very worst predictions do start to come through, I wouldn't rule out another World War.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  12. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the permafrost thaws, the way to recover the land would be to borrow from permaculture principles and let nature do most of the work.

    First, plant fast growing, cold tolerant plants that fix atmospheric nitrogen like Russian Olives, Bog Myrtles, Northern Bayberries and Buffalo Berries. They'll grow like mad and firm up what soil is there. Then you run an annual slash-and-drop program to build soil. You wouldn't need heavy equipment, just chain saws, because you wouldn't be letting anything get particularly large, and you won't be carting anything in or out, so costs would be relatively low.

    Using heavy equipment to cart in material to build up the land when you can let nature do the work would just be stupid.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  13. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the short term you may be right, but in the long term, oil is going to run out anyways. And if you think the worst case scenario is $10 a gallon for gasoline, then you're not considering what will happen to innumerable industrial and agricultural processes when we run out of easily obtained long-chain hydrocarbons. The absolutely most moronic, wasteful and short-sighted uses of oil is using it as the energy source for transportation. Nothing demonstrates the sheer awe-inspiring stupidity of the human race than the wasting of long-chain hydrocarbons by sticking them in a gas tank.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  14. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by joggle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    America is still a very rich country. Even if we paid $10/gallon at the pump, we'd still be paying lower taxes than Germans (no VAT here and lower income and property tax). We paid very high taxes during WWII and certainly didn't 'dismantle' our modern civilization, quite the opposite actually.

    That money doesn't just go 'poof'. In Germany, you can get a free college education (and by 'you', I literally mean you if you are fluent in German regardless of where you're from). They also have high-speed rail, a substantial industrial sector (largest in Europe), and relatively low unemployment.

    If gas prices went up, consumption of gas would surely go down, meaning more money would stay in the American economy rather than going overseas.

    No doubt it would be painful, but there's no painless way of digging out of the huge debt the US is already in.

  15. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. There have been reports that we really can't stop global warming anyways. It is "too late".

    It's not a binary issue. The more we increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the worse it gets on a smooth curve. There is the global warming that's already occurred and is in the pipeline that we can't stop. That includes the fact that once we get really serious about CO2 emissions it will take 30 or 40 years to to build the infrastructure necessary to convert to non-carbon energy sources so CO2 levels will continue to rise until then. But in the end the total global warming we will see (barring a significant change in the Sun) is largely set by the maximum level that CO2 reaches in the atmosphere. There is good reason to slow down and eventually stop carbon dioxide emissions to keep things from getting worse than they already have to be.

  16. Re:USA USA USA! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) And the US has a metric shit ton more resources than Germany. Your point?
    2) You fail basic economics. If the mark or the euro are overvalued, exports are terrible because they're more expensive than local goods. Try again.
    3) A declining population has nothing to do with economic greatness. Unless you're thinking immigration - in which case, the US is trying real hard to come down to Europe's level.
    4) You know squat about German corporate taxes, squat about US taxes and even less about real corporate taxes that arise from such niceties as the dutch sandwich or various indirect contributions.
    5) You also know squat about the German university system. Anyone can go to University, except those who keep failing their High School classes. Those that do fail classes go to technical trade schools. It's exactly like the US system, except it's predicated on grades rather than money.
    6) Your choice.
    7) You're making a lot of assumptions about future events. Would you also like a pony?
    8) No idea how that bit of (factual, for once) information relates to how well Germany is doing.
    9) Yes, you can get fancy food all over the place. That said, I'd rather walk into a random Braustaette than a random American diner.
    10) Your info is about 3 years out of date. In the meantime, the Porsche Panamera bettered the laptime by about 4 seconds.

    There are a ton of reasons why Germany has a ton of problems and is worse than the US, but for some reason, you managed to barely allude to only one in your list of ten.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  17. Re:USA USA USA! by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Informative

    2) Germany's standard of living is based on an export driven economy that essentially relies on the fact that first the mark and now the euro are way overvalued relative to the us dollar.

    An overvalued currency harms exports - it makes your prices higher than those of places without overvalued currencies. (And nothing is overvalued relative to the US dollar - well OK, US treasuries but those are really just future US dollars anyway).

    3) Germany has a declining population - if Germany was so great, why do they have a forecast net population decline? By contrast, the USA has a population that is growing the fastest out of any of the NATO nations.

    So your logic has Ethiopia, Liberia, Somalia, etc. as being "greater" than the US? And Luxemburg and Turkey have faster growing populations than the USA so your facts are wrong too.

    4) German corporations have a -lower- tax rate than American ones do. Oops, did I say that? Also, German laws are absolutely brutal for debt collection compared to American ones. If you, in America, blow off paying a loan bank, you get a bunch of angry letters and pissy phone calls and for the most part that's really all about they can do to you. In Germany, they can just come and start taking your shit away.

    15% business tax + 15% corporate tax + 5.5% solidarity tax is much lower than a 15-35% federal + 0-12% state progressive scheme? That would depend entirely on which two locations in the countries you are comparing the income of the corporation. Pick a US corporation booking its income in a state with a 12% corporate income tax then sure, saner corporations not so much.

      And having consequences for your actions is a bad thing now?

    7) Speaking of taxed to the hilt, Germans are actually more in debt per capita than Americans are, and the American financial picture improves rather dramatically when the Bush tax cuts expire, and the budget sequesters kick in.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

    You ignore half the equation. Germany has more external assets than the US. if I owe $5,000 on my credit card but have $6,000 in my checking account I'm in better shape than the guy who only owes $4,000 on his credit card but has $3,500 in his checking account.

    Subtract external debts from external assets and Germany is at +$1.2 trillion (USD) while the USA is at -$2.4 trillion (USD). Note that Japan, whom Americans who like to pretend debt doesn't matter love to cite, is at +$3.4 trillion (USD).

  18. Corduroy fabric in Danish is Jernbanefløjl by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apropos "corduroy roads", corduroy fabric in Danish is Jernbanefløjl, which translated literally means - railway velvet! :)

  19. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by artecco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, but I donâ(TM)t see the direct link between cost of gas and unemployment.

    My country (Norway) has half the population density of the US, which I believe to be a better indication of the need for moving goods rather than the size of the country. At the same time we are paying approx. 11$/gal and have a unemployment rate at 3,6%.

    This is of course in a fascist-liberal-socialist-communist-country; hence none of the above is applicable for the US.