Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#111

Post by baruchthescribe »

viraptor wrote: post #108
baruchthescribe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, ask them for their research going back to 1970 because strangely enough, they leave out everything before 1981 to give the impression that Arctic ice is on a downward trend.

You're assuming that they immediately started measuring it after forming NOAA. Do you have a good reason for this? I've found no reason to believe they have their own measurements from before what's currently presented.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a 1990 report that uses NOAA data from 1974. It shows that Arctic sea ice is cyclical, as it's always been, and had a peak in 1979. SO NOAA was measuring sea ice extent at least as far back as 1974.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120428072521/https://www.ipcc....

Also, the third graph on page 202 shows that the Earth was MUCH warmer a thousand years ago than it is now, despite far less CO2. This isn't particularly surprising since carbon dioxide levels track global temperature - not the other way around - as the ice core data going back 800 000 years shows.

The 1985 Department of Energy report Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide uses data going back to 1925 that shows, surprise, that Arctic sea ice is normal, cyclical and has nothing to do with CO2 levels.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236534420_Projectin...

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#112

Post by crispinb »

koonsolo wrote: post #49
CzechTech wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a question: What if I don't care about "future generations"?

In that case, the chances of your genes, ideology, etc. surviving is pretty slim compared to those who do care. It's not that not caring is "wrong", it just has a lower chance of beating natural selection.

> It's not that not caring is "wrong"

Er, actually that's just it. It's (to put it mildly) eccentric to think otherwise.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#113

Post by crispinb »

chewz wrote: post #75
kot-behemoth wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People will get exactly what they deserve". What have children born today done to "deserve" the devastating consequences that are going to unfold? Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless.

> Your view is fascinatingly self-centered and ruthless. Perhaps but I haven't seen any of my middle class friends taking their children to school on a bike or by public transport. And when I point that it is possible it is always "Meh, it is more convinient in my car and I am above that". If people with children do not care why should I?

Caring about children isn't about arguing from premises. Indeed if someone claims to need an argument to care about children, it's a pretty good prima facie case for the existence of a psychological disorder.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#114

Post by mirimir »

koheripbal wrote: post #83
mirimir wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From another perspective, we are "one of the largest extinction events".

Is it just me, or are HN comments becoming less and less informative, and more and more like Reddit zingers ?

I was just darkly joking about the possibility that it's not all about us. That, for all the millions of other species going down, we're not that distinguishable from the Chicxulub asteroid. Some of them might even be conscious, on long timescales.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#115

Post by flukus »

jamesblonde wrote: post #51
flukus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most sudden changes were long enough ago that continents were in a different configuration at different latitudes, so it's not very prescriptive. It's almost definitely played some role but past climate change has almost always been the result of a number of factors coalescing, we have to estimate it's effects on our specific conditions.

This is pure speculation. Configuration of continents has no affect on a warming ocean releasing large amounts of methane trapped as methane ice (methane clathrates). You then set some arbitrary condition on us understanding the current configuration of continents and how that would interact with the release of methane clathrates based on warming. Sorry this is denialism mascarading as evidence-based requirements. Th…

> This is pure speculation. Configuration of continents has no affect on a warming ocean releasing large amounts of methane trapped as methane ice (methane clathrates).

TFA is about permafrost and not all clathrates, the word isn't even mentioned in the article and if you bothered to look at a map (https://geology.com/articles/methane-hydrates/) you'd see they're virtually all on continental shelves or the continents themselves.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#116

Post by flukus »

baruchthescribe wrote: post #94
flukus wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you were growing up, did you watch NASA's James Hansen saying in 2008 that we would have NO Arctic sea ice in summer by 2018? Was he correct? No? Got a full quote in context? You "skeptics" have a tendency to miss things like "as soon as" and "if this trend continues".

No, we tend to take what people say at face value. Even if they're fraudulent hacks like James Hansen: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=...

> Hansen, echoing work by other scientests, said that in five to 10 years, the arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

That's not even a quote, let alone one in context.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#117

Post by baruchthescribe »

flukus wrote: post #116
baruchthescribe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we tend to take what people say at face value. Even if they're fraudulent hacks like James Hansen: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=...

> Hansen, echoing work by other scientests, said that in five to 10 years, the arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer. That's not even a quote, let alone one in context.

Run along little gamma. He said it in front of Congress. It's in the Congressional record. There is boatloads of coverage of what he said at the time and his prediction, like all of his others before it, is complete bollocks.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#118

Post by mistrial9 »

mistrial9 wrote: post #4
Daishiman wrote: post #3

For those who haven't been watching this topic for the past few years: permafrost melt is the most probable factor for the possibility of a near-term extinction event.

fear and panic do not make a strategy; taking the issue seriously is, from a risk-management perspective.

try https://exponentialroadmap.org

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#119

Post by petersellers »

baruchthescribe wrote: post #106
petersellers wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making the claim so you need to show the evidence (especially since it contradicts accepted scientific consensus). Don't be lazy and force other people to do your work for you as you won't have a chance in hell of convincing anyone that way. What you've linked so far shows that the sea ice level of the past 5 years is well below even 2 standard deviations under the average, which contradicts your claim. Not s…

I remember when it was accepted scientific consensus that plate tectonics was a crock of shit. Didn't make it any less true. If the data shows that the Arctic is doing fine, then I don't care how many climate alarmists say it's melting if it isn't. Tony Heller destroys the fundamental deception of global warming here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU

>I remember when it was accepted scientific consensus that plate tectonics was a crock of shit. Didn't make it any less true.

No one is saying science is infallible. It's just the best explanation for what we're seeing so far, based on empirical evidence. Your argument that science was wrong about something in the past does absolutely nothing to support any of your claims - for that you need to post evidence.

>If the data shows that the Arctic is doing fine, then I don't care how many climate alarmists say it's melting if it isn't.

Your own link you posted contradicts this. I'm starting to think that you don't understand the contents of your own link, because it very clearly contradicts what you are trying to say.

>Tony Heller destroys the fundamental deception of global warming here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU

This is a typical tactic used by climate change deniers. Ask for evidence - when they can't provide any, they distract and post something completely different and try to deflect.

I'll spend 10 minutes of my time watching that video after you spend a little effort and post a scientific paper that supports your original claim.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#120

Post by viraptor »

baruchthescribe wrote: post #111
viraptor wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that they immediately started measuring it after forming NOAA. Do you have a good reason for this? I've found no reason to believe they have their own measurements from before what's currently presented.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a 1990 report that uses NOAA data from 1974. It shows that Arctic sea ice is cyclical, as it's always been, and had a peak in 1979. SO NOAA was measuring sea ice extent at least as far back as 1974. https://web.archive.org/web/20120428072521/https://www.ipcc.... Also, the third graph on page 202 shows that the Earth was MUCH warmer a thousand years ago than it is n…

> Also, the third graph on page 202 shows that the Earth was MUCH warmer a thousand years ago than it is now, despite far less CO2.

It's true, but doesn't prove your point. Specifically, we're still left with two options: what we see now is the same cyclic effect, or what we see now is caused by us and if we get another cycle on top we're screwed even faster. You'd have to show the inverse - that the production of lots of CO2 does not affect the cyclic process. (Or that the pattern of the current raise is extremely likely to belong to a cycle)

Post reply on HN