Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted • Hacker News Board

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#241

Post by growlist » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 8:39 PM UTC

pier25 wrote: post #181

anm89 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who agrees with your suggestion as to how serious climate change is, I've come to think asking individuals to change their behavior to fix the problem is actually counter productive. People generally want to do the right thing and they want to matter whereas in my experience the average person is not a great systems thinker. So people are very receptive to calls to "be better" because it let's them fight f…

There isn't much the individual can do to fix climate change. Even if you went completely off the grid to live in the woods outside of the industrial civilization eating plants etc this wouldn't fix anything. Yes, you would certainly reduce your emissions but this is not nearly enough. Even if a miracle happened and we reached global zero emissions today there are already 415ppm in the atmosphere which will remain th…

The UN wants co2 reduced, but is apparently acquiescent about massive population growth in the developing world, and indeed openly promotes mass migration from there to the developed world, necessitating massive construction, infrastructure creation etc.

Apparently I'm a hateful person for noticing this discrepancy.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#242

Post by growlist » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 8:45 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #176

anm89 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who agrees with your suggestion as to how serious climate change is, I've come to think asking individuals to change their behavior to fix the problem is actually counter productive. People generally want to do the right thing and they want to matter whereas in my experience the average person is not a great systems thinker. So people are very receptive to calls to "be better" because it let's them fight f…

My earliest recollection of climate change/global warming was about 30 years ago, and it was understood this was a society and political issue then, and the need for a systematic approach by corporations and government was needed. Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, called the most docile claims about global warming/climate change as radical, lies, socialism, communism, anti-business, pro-big government, and so…

> It's like humans are designed to make everything a dispute

If we're aiming for more reasoned debate I'm not sure the throwing around of the 'denier' label really gets us much further forward.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#243

Post by pier25 » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #241

pier25 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't much the individual can do to fix climate change. Even if you went completely off the grid to live in the woods outside of the industrial civilization eating plants etc this wouldn't fix anything. Yes, you would certainly reduce your emissions but this is not nearly enough. Even if a miracle happened and we reached global zero emissions today there are already 415ppm in the atmosphere which will remain th…

The UN wants co2 reduced, but is apparently acquiescent about massive population growth in the developing world, and indeed openly promotes mass migration from there to the developed world, necessitating massive construction, infrastructure creation etc. Apparently I'm a hateful person for noticing this discrepancy.

> is apparently acquiescent about massive population growth in the developing world

Probably because imposing natality rates would be quite unpopular. Humans tend to think having kids is an inalienable right.

China got away with it because China, but this would not work in other countries.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#244

Post by CapricornNoble » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 9:07 PM UTC

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #155

CapricornNoble wrote: post #113

Canada, Siberia.....both of these areas have been relatively untouched/unexploited due to the permafrost issue and generally inhospitable weather. But they represent a HUGE portion of the global land area.... So why aren't we looking at climate change as opening up vast tracts of the northern hemisphere to settlement and exploitation?

I'm sure there is a lot of land under permafrost, but make sure you are not unduly impressed by how it looks like on a mercator projection.

Canada's three federal territories (Yukon, Nanuvut, Northwest Territory) have a total land area of 3,535,263 km^2

That's about 3x Texas + California combined. That's not even counting the northern half (give or take) of Canada's other provinces. Russia's Sakha Republic is ~3 million km2 by itself. If Sakha were a country of its own, it would still be in the Top10 by area (#8), just below India.

It's not just how they look on a map, these are potentially hugely underutilized tracts of land. All I'm saying is instead of the constant doom-and-gloom prognostications, let's figure out how we can maximize the efficient utilization of this land that MIGHT actually benefit from improved accessibility under warmer conditions.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#245

Post by CapricornNoble » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

ryanobjc wrote: post #182

CapricornNoble wrote: post #113

Canada, Siberia.....both of these areas have been relatively untouched/unexploited due to the permafrost issue and generally inhospitable weather. But they represent a HUGE portion of the global land area.... So why aren't we looking at climate change as opening up vast tracts of the northern hemisphere to settlement and exploitation?

Because the land sucks. It just sucks. Tundra when thawed isn't some magical land. It's all swamp basically. GOOD LUCK with 100' deep bogs all over the place!

If we are facing something like potentially billions of human beings losing their habitable regions near the equator, shouldn't someone be busy sketching out a plan on the costs and requirements of draining swaps to the tune of several million kilometers of land? So we can at least analyze our options, just in case?

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#246

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 12:38 PM UTC

hodgesrm wrote: post #239

snowwrestler wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that the gravitational collapse of a rock buttress, even a large one, would be enough to trigger a major eruption of Rainier. The energy of an eruption is shockingly large and almost anything else you can imagine pales before it. The thickness and weight of the entire mountain is not a significant check on an eruption; therefore, it doesn't seem likely that removing a portion of the mountain (via collapse) wo…

Lahars are different. They are mudflows. It's common to see them triggered by eruptions (e.g., Mt St Helens in 1980) but they can arise from landslides as well as glacier collapses. The most recent Lahar on Mt Rainier was in 1947. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kautz_Creek

Thanks. I thought the term was reserved for hot mudflows triggered by an eruption, but I can see that you are correct.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#247

Post by acqq » Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 12:42 PM UTC

emanuensis wrote: post #237

acqq wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the text: "George argues that the project succeeded at capturing carbon too. There’s no available evidence to back him up — it’s exceptionally difficult to measure the carbon captured by experiments like these, and the results from more carefully controlled experiments are not promising ."

i would be interested in what/where those "controlled experiments" were... my understanding is that even experimenting is a no no in the field of geoengineering. Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a net gain, not merely a partial temporary cover. It also increases biota -- exactly the opposite of what humans tend to do, we are now in a major extinction event. Increasing biota on l…

> Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a net gain

That is exactly what is not confirmed. It’s just a belief of the proponents.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#248

Post by emanuensis » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 4:25 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #247

emanuensis wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would be interested in what/where those "controlled experiments" were... my understanding is that even experimenting is a no no in the field of geoengineering. Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a net gain, not merely a partial temporary cover. It also increases biota -- exactly the opposite of what humans tend to do, we are now in a major extinction event. Increasing biota on l…

> Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a net gain That is exactly what is not confirmed . It’s just a belief of the proponents.

i would still like to know what "controlled experiments" exist. Has anyone done the studies to show it is not worth the while, eg that it does not remove carbon? Although just not removing carbon does not say seeding is not beneficial, carbon neutral aqua culture would be quite beneficial.

There are some natural experiments: the Sahara feeds the Amazon, and the Gobi feeds the Pacific ... Perhaps more directed seeding would be more beneficial. We will never know unless we actually study, or try.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#249

Post by acqq » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 8:33 PM UTC

emanuensis wrote: post #248

acqq wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a net gain That is exactly what is not confirmed . It’s just a belief of the proponents.

i would still like to know what "controlled experiments" exist. Has anyone done the studies to show it is not worth the while, eg that it does not remove carbon? Although just not removing carbon does not say seeding is not beneficial, carbon neutral aqua culture would be quite beneficial. There are some natural experiments: the Sahara feeds the Amazon, and the Gobi feeds the Pacific ... Perhaps more directed seeding…

> Has anyone done the studies to show it is not worth the while, eg that it does not remove carbon?

It is well known that in the normal conditions various bacteria degrade organic matter, which means nothing "dead" would really remain at the bottom. Typically all decomposing produces CO2 again.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#250

Post by acqq » Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 8:24 AM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #238

acqq wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Only” is a distortion enough, and also using the number from +2 deg prediction in the +1.5 deg context. If I’d go through it I could find many more of these “muddying the water” techniques. As I’ve quoted the IPCC in that specific case reports the results of the specific scientific paper which is much more precise than what is “distortedly” presented. There are exact criteria specified under which the estimates hold…

> using the number from +2 deg prediction in the +1.5 deg context. It's not! Read your own quote! "[compared to the baseline period of 1986–2005] urban populations in most regions would be decreased at 1.5°C (350.2 ± 158.8 million people) compared to 2°C (410.7 ± 213.5 million people)." You have (accurately, IMHO) rephrased this as: "So it says: in case of 1.5 deg 350 million, in case of 2 deg 410 million." This is E…

OK, thanks, now I understand your view.

The problem with "desperate" reformulations is -- despair. That demotivates from taking any action those who don't have enough understanding and start to look at the problem as either "it's hopeless" or are just "blocking out" ("it's so bad that it can't be true").

The humanity just need to act it its best interests in the sense to recognize that looking only for the shortest-term benefits harms the most of humanity already middle-term.

The only who can/hope to profit are the kinds of "arm dealers" -- the much less stable world (that is surely going to be a result of a lot of lives exposed to the new climatic conditions) is their direct "profit maker."