Is this the tipping point?
http://newatlas.com/climate-study-permafrost/51305/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=0019c1b0bf-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-0019c1b0bf-92533145
There’s no such thing as a tipping point. But of course a dramatic reduction is inevitable.
mollwollfumble said:
There’s no such thing as a tipping point. But of course a dramatic reduction is inevitable.
That’s a strange thing to say.
Could you tell us why you don’t believe in tipping points?
mollwollfumble said:
There’s no such thing as a tipping point. But of course a dramatic reduction is inevitable.
A lot of people will be very disappointed to hear that. But to put it another way, we are now fu#ked, whereas before we were just naughty boys playing around with disaster.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=8457650
Climate trouble may be bubbling up in far north
Ogmog said:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=8457650
Climate trouble may be bubbling up in far north
Pure methane, gas bubbling up from underwater vents, escaping into northern skies, adds to the global-warming gases accumulating in the atmosphere. And pure methane escaping in the massive amounts known to be locked in the Arctic permafrost and seabed would spell a climate catastrophe.
Is such an unlocking underway?
Researchers say air temperatures here in northwest Canada, in Siberia and elsewhere in the Arctic have risen more than 2.5 C (4.5 F) since 1970 — much faster than the global average. The summer thaw is reaching deeper into frozen soil, at a rate of 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) a year, and a further 7 C (13 F) temperature rise is possible this century, says the authoritative, U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
————
It’s a worry
Ian said:
Ogmog said:http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=8457650
Climate trouble may be bubbling up in far north
Pure methane, gas bubbling up from underwater vents, escaping into northern skies, adds to the global-warming gases accumulating in the atmosphere. And pure methane escaping in the massive amounts known to be locked in the Arctic permafrost and seabed would spell a climate catastrophe.
Is such an unlocking underway?
Researchers say air temperatures here in northwest Canada, in Siberia and elsewhere in the Arctic have risen more than 2.5 C (4.5 F) since 1970 — much faster than the global average. The summer thaw is reaching deeper into frozen soil, at a rate of 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) a year, and a further 7 C (13 F) temperature rise is possible this century, says the authoritative, U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
————
It’s a worry
Hubble bubble, toil and trouble-
‘Reporting to the European Geophysical Union last year, the scientists, affiliated with the University of Alaska and the Russian Academy of Sciences, cited “extreme” saturation of methane in surface waters and in the air above. They said up to 10% of the undersea permafrost area had melted, and it was “highly possible” that this would open the way to abrupt release of an estimated 50 billion tons of methane.’
>http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=8457650
read that.
think humans are going to miss the vegetation thermostat one day (deforestation), instead the thermostat is going to be wild weather, increased temperatures will drive the hydrological cycle harder, more extremes.
truth is the earth has been overpopulated by humans since the seventies.
transition said:
>http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=8457650read that.
think humans are going to miss the vegetation thermostat one day (deforestation), instead the thermostat is going to be wild weather, increased temperatures will drive the hydrological cycle harder, more extremes.
truth is the earth has been overpopulated by humans since the seventies.
The truth is that we have gone on doing exactly the same thing regardless of our folly.
roughbarked said:
transition said:
>http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=8457650read that.
think humans are going to miss the vegetation thermostat one day (deforestation), instead the thermostat is going to be wild weather, increased temperatures will drive the hydrological cycle harder, more extremes.
truth is the earth has been overpopulated by humans since the seventies.
The truth is that we have gone on doing exactly the same thing regardless of our folly.
Those who fell back on saying; “We’ll WAIT & SEE/Believe It WHEN We SEE IT.”
..assumed the scientists they’d been IGNORING/Acting as though they were IDIOTS,
could somehow STOP what had been set in motion once they FINALLY Accepted the
Evidence will undoubtedly BLAME these same “ALARMIST” scientists for FAILING
To WARN Everyone of the Clear & Present Danger “In A Timely Manner”.
…and…
Yes, there is/was “A Threshold/Tipping-Point/Run-Away Effect” …that being, the
temperature at which the Permafrost would melt, release the methane hydrates,
that would subsequently cause further warming that would release the methane
hydrates (naturally sequestered carbon) causing catastrophic climate change.
https://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/climate.html
U.S. Geological Survey Gas Hydrates Project
Ogmog said:
Yes, there is/was “A Threshold/Tipping-Point/Run-Away Effect” …that being, the
temperature at which the Permafrost would melt, release the methane hydrates,
that would subsequently cause further warming that would release the methane
hydrates (naturally sequestered carbon) causing catastrophic climate change.
Nope, the exact opposite.
1.
Global warming causes increased evaporation causes increased cloud cover which gives the Earth a higher albedo which causes global cooling.
2.
Global warming causes sea level rise which increases the water depth in tropical seas which causes global cooling.
Ogmog said:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/JustOneThing/story?id=8457650
Climate trouble may be bubbling up in far north
Wow! Everyone should read this.
mollwollfumble said:
Ogmog said:
Yes, there is/was “A Threshold/Tipping-Point/Run-Away Effect” …that being, the
temperature at which the Permafrost would melt, release the methane hydrates,
that would subsequently cause further warming that would release the methane
hydrates (naturally sequestered carbon) causing catastrophic climate change.
Nope, the exact opposite.
1.
Global warming causes increased evaporation causes increased cloud cover which gives the Earth a higher albedo which causes global cooling.2.
Global warming causes sea level rise which increases the water depth in tropical seas which causes global cooling.
Facts obviously don’t work on everyone.
mollwollfumble said:
Ogmog said:
Yes, there is/was “A Threshold/Tipping-Point/Run-Away Effect” …that being, the
temperature at which the Permafrost would melt, release the methane hydrates,
that would subsequently cause further warming that would release the methane
hydrates (naturally sequestered carbon) causing catastrophic climate change.
Nope, the exact opposite.
1.
Global warming causes increased evaporation causes increased cloud cover which gives the Earth a higher albedo which causes global cooling.2.
Global warming causes sea level rise which increases the water depth in tropical seas which causes global cooling.
Well I hope that was intended to be ironic, on the basis that the climate is a complex interaction of many different factors, most of which we can only model crudely, and all of which are unpredictable.
Which is precisely why it is dumb to keep burning fossil fuels as though it will make no difference, when it might well make a difference much worse than predicted.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
Ogmog said:
Yes, there is/was “A Threshold/Tipping-Point/Run-Away Effect” …that being, the
temperature at which the Permafrost would melt, release the methane hydrates,
that would subsequently cause further warming that would release the methane
hydrates (naturally sequestered carbon) causing catastrophic climate change.
Nope, the exact opposite.
1.
Global warming causes increased evaporation causes increased cloud cover which gives the Earth a higher albedo which causes global cooling.2.
Global warming causes sea level rise which increases the water depth in tropical seas which causes global cooling.
Well I hope that was intended to be ironic, on the basis that the climate is a complex interaction of many different factors, most of which we can only model crudely, and all of which are unpredictable.
Which is precisely why it is dumb to keep burning fossil fuels as though it will make no difference, when it might well make a difference much worse than predicted.
I think there are many people (even global warming believers) who think that once we turn off our co2 emissions, the climate will go back to normal, or at most stay as it is, sort of like a light switch.
PermeateFree said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:Nope, the exact opposite.
1.
Global warming causes increased evaporation causes increased cloud cover which gives the Earth a higher albedo which causes global cooling.2.
Global warming causes sea level rise which increases the water depth in tropical seas which causes global cooling.
Well I hope that was intended to be ironic, on the basis that the climate is a complex interaction of many different factors, most of which we can only model crudely, and all of which are unpredictable.
Which is precisely why it is dumb to keep burning fossil fuels as though it will make no difference, when it might well make a difference much worse than predicted.
I think there are many people (even global warming believers) who think that once we turn off our co2 emissions, the climate will go back to normal, or at most stay as it is, sort of like a light switch.
Aye.
After achieving a carbon-neutral economy, we’ll need a carbon-negative economy for a while to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
dv said:
PermeateFree said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Well I hope that was intended to be ironic, on the basis that the climate is a complex interaction of many different factors, most of which we can only model crudely, and all of which are unpredictable.
Which is precisely why it is dumb to keep burning fossil fuels as though it will make no difference, when it might well make a difference much worse than predicted.
I think there are many people (even global warming believers) who think that once we turn off our co2 emissions, the climate will go back to normal, or at most stay as it is, sort of like a light switch.
Aye.
After achieving a carbon-neutral economy, we’ll need a carbon-negative economy for a while to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
The problem will be that the genie will have gone over the hill and will not be found again for thousands of years.
PermeateFree said:
dv said:
PermeateFree said:I think there are many people (even global warming believers) who think that once we turn off our co2 emissions, the climate will go back to normal, or at most stay as it is, sort of like a light switch.
Aye.
After achieving a carbon-neutral economy, we’ll need a carbon-negative economy for a while to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
The problem will be that the genie will have gone over the hill and will not be found again for thousands of years.
I know … I mean we are in a phase of “catastrophe amelioration”.
dv said:
PermeateFree said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Well I hope that was intended to be ironic, on the basis that the climate is a complex interaction of many different factors, most of which we can only model crudely, and all of which are unpredictable.
Which is precisely why it is dumb to keep burning fossil fuels as though it will make no difference, when it might well make a difference much worse than predicted.
I think there are many people (even global warming believers) who think that once we turn off our co2 emissions, the climate will go back to normal, or at most stay as it is, sort of like a light switch.
Aye.
After achieving a carbon-neutral economy, we’ll need a carbon-negative economy for a while to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
I’ve decided that the best thing is to order nice men in white coats for all of you.
I expected better from you, Rev. A building is “ a complex interaction of many interacting factors “ whose lifetime may be much shorter than predicted, but I don’t think you’ll use that as an excuse for never entering one.
mollwollfumble said:
dv said:
PermeateFree said:I think there are many people (even global warming believers) who think that once we turn off our co2 emissions, the climate will go back to normal, or at most stay as it is, sort of like a light switch.
Aye.
After achieving a carbon-neutral economy, we’ll need a carbon-negative economy for a while to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
I’ve decided that the best thing is to order nice men in white coats for all of you.
I expected better from you, Rev. A building is “ a complex interaction of many interacting factors “ whose lifetime may be much shorter than predicted, but I don’t think you’ll use that as an excuse for never entering one.
I’m struggling to see ow you can be serious with that statement, but just in case you were:
It’s not a reason for never entering a building, but it is a reason for not using flammable material as cladding, for example.
mollwollfumble said:
dv said:
PermeateFree said:I think there are many people (even global warming believers) who think that once we turn off our co2 emissions, the climate will go back to normal, or at most stay as it is, sort of like a light switch.
Aye.
After achieving a carbon-neutral economy, we’ll need a carbon-negative economy for a while to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
I’ve decided that the best thing is to order nice men in white coats for all of you.
I expected better from you, Rev. A building is “ a complex interaction of many interacting factors “ whose lifetime may be much shorter than predicted, but I don’t think you’ll use that as an excuse for never entering one.
Moll, I think you will find water vapor in your additional cloud scenario, also creates a greenhouse affect, thereby also heating up the planet rather than cooling it.
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
dv said:Aye.
After achieving a carbon-neutral economy, we’ll need a carbon-negative economy for a while to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
I’ve decided that the best thing is to order nice men in white coats for all of you.
I expected better from you, Rev. A building is “ a complex interaction of many interacting factors “ whose lifetime may be much shorter than predicted, but I don’t think you’ll use that as an excuse for never entering one.
Moll, I think you will find water vapor in your additional cloud scenario, also creates a greenhouse affect, thereby also heating up the planet rather than cooling it.
>>As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it’s warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a ‘positive feedback loop’.<<
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
I believe that burning fossil fuels will have a short term effect on climate but will not make a jot of difference to the interglacial frequency of earth.
To my mind the biggest threat to earth as we know it is the destruction of habitat, the destruction of the worlds forests, over fishing of our seas and plastic packaging omnipresence.
But above all it is the capitalist need for continued growth and over population.
There should be a load of compromising on the road to our horizon.
Peak Warming Man said:
I believe that burning fossil fuels will have a short term effect on climate but will not make a jot of difference to the interglacial frequency of earth.
To my mind the biggest threat to earth as we know it is the destruction of habitat, the destruction of the worlds forests, over fishing of our seas and plastic packaging omnipresence.
But above all it is the capitalist need for continued growth and over population.
There should be a load of compromising on the road to our horizon.
Well no wonder you vote Green
Peak Warming Man said:
I believe that burning fossil fuels will have a short term effect on climate but will not make a jot of difference to the interglacial frequency of earth.
To my mind the biggest threat to earth as we know it is the destruction of habitat, the destruction of the worlds forests, over fishing of our seas and plastic packaging omnipresence.
But above all it is the capitalist need for continued growth and over population.
There should be a load of compromising on the road to our horizon.
The thrust of this thread, is about what has been set in motion by ourselves by the burning of fossil fuels, and that it has now reached a state (resulting from the increased temperatures), where more co2 and methane is being released via natural circumstances, and as the planet warms even more greenhouse gases will be released to further increase temperatures. In other words, although we once could influence the global warming climate, the environment has taken over and is doing it by itself ie the climate has reached its tipping point as far as we are concerned.
Peak Warming Man said:
I believe that burning fossil fuels will have a short term effect on climate but will not make a jot of difference to the interglacial frequency of earth.
To my mind the biggest threat to earth as we know it is the destruction of habitat, the destruction of the worlds forests, over fishing of our seas and plastic packaging omnipresence.
But above all it is the capitalist need for continued growth and over population.
There should be a load of compromising on the road to our horizon.
the shovel.
Peak Warming Man said:
I believe that burning fossil fuels will have a short term effect on climate but will not make a jot of difference to the interglacial frequency of earth.
You may be right about that, or you may be wrong, but since the next glaciation is probably well outside the timescale we can plan for (and if it’s not, there’s not much we can do about it), it’s not really relevant to the discussion on what we should do about GHG emissions.
Peak Warming Man said:
To my mind the biggest threat to earth as we know it is the destruction of habitat, the destruction of the worlds forests, over fishing of our seas and plastic packaging omnipresence.
These are certainly things that deserve greater action than they currently get. Funnily enough, those politicians who promote greater activity in these areas are the same ones who would do more to reduce GHG emissions, and vice-versa. It’s not an either/or.
Peak Warming Man said:
But above all it is the capitalist need for continued growth and over population.
There should be a load of compromising on the road to our horizon.
It is one of the great undiscussed myths that market economies (which I’m guessing is what you mean by capitalism in this context) require continual population growth. In fact when properly managed they can do just fine with a stable or even reducing population. As for economic growth, if hidden and future costs are recognised then a market economy is the best way of optimising the balance between current consumption and future well-being.
If only we had a government that believed in market economics.
OMG, this news is just almost maybe terrifying.
Almost as terrifying as the firdt time I read th I s garbage twenty years ago
PermeateFree said:
Peak Warming Man said:
I believe that burning fossil fuels will have a short term effect on climate but will not make a jot of difference to the interglacial frequency of earth.
To my mind the biggest threat to earth as we know it is the destruction of habitat, the destruction of the worlds forests, over fishing of our seas and plastic packaging omnipresence.
But above all it is the capitalist need for continued growth and over population.
There should be a load of compromising on the road to our horizon.
The thrust of this thread, is about what has been set in motion by ourselves by the burning of fossil fuels, and that it has now reached a state (resulting from the increased temperatures), where more co2 and methane is being released via natural circumstances, and as the planet warms even more greenhouse gases will be released to further increase temperatures. In other words, although we once could influence the global warming climate, the environment has taken over and is doing it by itself ie the climate has reached its tipping point as far as we are concerned.
Yup.. I particularly like THIS Bit:
“ Reporting to the European Geophysical Union last year, the scientists, affiliated with the University of Alaska and the Russian Academy of Sciences, cited “extreme” saturation of methane in surface waters and in the air above. They said up to 10% of the undersea permafrost area had melted, and it was “highly possible” that this would open the way to abrupt release of an estimated 50 billion tons of methane.
Depending on how much dissolved in the sea, that might multiply methane in the atmosphere several-fold, boosting temperatures enough to cause “catastrophic greenhouse warming,” as the Russians called it. It would be self-perpetuating, melting more permafrost, emitting more methane.
Some might label that alarmism. And Stockholm University researcher Orjan Gustafsson, a partner in the Russians’ field work, acknowledged that “the scientific community is quite split on how fast the permafrost can thaw.”
But there’s no doubt the north contains enough potential methane and carbon dioxide to cause abrupt climate change, Gustafsson said by telephone from Sweden.”
Peak Warming Man said:
I believe that burning fossil fuels will have a short term effect on climate but will not make a jot of difference to the interglacial frequency of earth.
To my mind the biggest threat to earth as we know it is the destruction of habitat, the destruction of the worlds forests, over fishing of our seas and plastic packaging omnipresence.
But above all it is the capitalist need for continued growth and over population.
There should be a load of compromising on the road to our horizon.
While all of the above is true,
in light of the study concerning the “FeedBack Loop”
set in motion by our action (…not to mention INaction…)
the concern over Plastic Packaging in the current gyres and
the danger it undoubtedly poses to wildlife, has been figuratively
pushed into the background at least for the moment…
SEE: Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. :-/
Ogmog said:
Peak Warming Man said:
I believe that burning fossil fuels will have a short term effect on climate but will not make a jot of difference to the interglacial frequency of earth.
To my mind the biggest threat to earth as we know it is the destruction of habitat, the destruction of the worlds forests, over fishing of our seas and plastic packaging omnipresence.
But above all it is the capitalist need for continued growth and over population.
There should be a load of compromising on the road to our horizon.While all of the above is true,
in light of the study concerning the “FeedBack Loop”
set in motion by our action (…not to mention INaction…)
the concern over Plastic Packaging in the current gyres and
the danger it undoubtedly poses to wildlife, has been figuratively
pushed into the background at least for the moment…SEE: Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. :-/
Observer was the captain on that ship.
The_observer said:
OMG, this news is just almost maybe terrifying.Almost as terrifying as the firdt time I read th I s garbage twenty years ago
Yup
That was then, this is now.
We were warned, we failed to heed the warning
The “Wait & See” lots is just beginning to see that which they were waiting to see.
Anyway, yeah, The Genie’s already gone over the hill.
When I was preaching all this to my Scout Troops 30 years ago,
my favorite kid promised he’d have; “I TOLD YOU SO” inscribed on my headstone.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Ogmog said:
BTW… Don’t Miss THIS Bit
https://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/climate.html
U.S. Geological Survey Gas Hydrates Project
Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Has a Stern Warning For All of Humanity
http://www.sciencealert.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-downplaying-our-involvement-in-climate-change-is-simply-irresponsible?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1