Permafrost melts mean more habitable land for humans! This is wonderful for humanity. Russian and Canada will be way more populated in the future.
Yeah, especially Russia, at the rate it's collapsing demographically.
Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
31–40 of 85 posts
Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
>" The only constant in the Universe is change... " Seems obvious now, doesn't it.
It might, but the first time I heard it (put differently) it blew my mind. The way I heard it was: There is no such thing as equilibrium in nature. It's more about constant imbalances. It made me re-think our whole approach to environmentalism. When we attempt to restore something, what are we restoring it to?
I think we want to restore it to a random walk with less bias in the "warming" direction.
Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
>" The only constant in the Universe is change... " Seems obvious now, doesn't it.
It might, but the first time I heard it (put differently) it blew my mind. The way I heard it was: There is no such thing as equilibrium in nature. It's more about constant imbalances. It made me re-think our whole approach to environmentalism. When we attempt to restore something, what are we restoring it to?
Agreed - I was going to write more about how the imbalances within nature and the ebb and flow between the current state is always changing, just at scales larger than a single human life's observance.
Its amazing to me that so many ancient civiliaations had an understanding of cycles many thousands of years long, and understood that things change in cycles, as opposed to linear....
Take, for example the Pyramid of Ku at Chichenitza...
I went there in 2001 with a Mayan Elder named Hunbatz Men [0] -- He explained the nature of the Pyramid as the calendar:
The pyramid is broken into a number of architectural elements that define various aspects of the solar calendar: the indentations on the sides of the steps of the pyramid are divided to reflect the year, the levels represent divisional seasons, the steps inside the pyramid leading to the top is 72 and it represents the 72,000 year cycle of the plieades over head - the graduations in the face of the steps of the pyramid are the 28 days of their 13 month year. The top of the pyramid is the correct height that when you look down the groove on the top cube, they align perfectly to the horizon in all directions - and a bunch of of ther aspects of time tracking. Its an amazing celestial clock.
https://www.council-of-world-elders.de/en/members/hunbatz-me...
Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
#34What nobody ever talks about is that some of the old organic stuff (roots, leaves) in the thawing permafrost did not grow there in recent times because that stuff won't grow in permafrost . This means the thawing of the permafrost is not new and that the area used to have more stuff growing there than it does now. We should expect a greening of parts of Alaska if the warming continues and growth resumes.
Why do you think people should be talking about that more? I would think people aren't talking about it much because, well, it's kind of obvious.
There is a narrative that melting permafrost is new and some kind of global catastrophe. That narrative falls apart if we point out that there's really nothing new going on.
Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
#35Permafrost melts mean more habitable land for humans! This is wonderful for humanity. Russian and Canada will be way more populated in the future.
Yeah, especially Russia, at the rate it's collapsing demographically.
I suspect the borders will be very different. Much of Russia's population was taken from China. Siberia if warmed would probably be fought over. It's currently closer to china but the transportation was designed to only benefits the Russian government.
Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think people should be talking about that more? I would think people aren't talking about it much because, well, it's kind of obvious.
There is a narrative that melting permafrost is new and some kind of global catastrophe. That narrative falls apart if we point out that there's really nothing new going on. Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
I don't understand how greening formerly frozen Alaska is not part of a global catastrophe?
Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think people should be talking about that more? I would think people aren't talking about it much because, well, it's kind of obvious.
There is a narrative that melting permafrost is new and some kind of global catastrophe. That narrative falls apart if we point out that there's really nothing new going on. Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Climate change in of itself is not the problem - it is the rate of change at which it will occur that is the problem such that we can't adapt to it (ie. stop populating Florida etc. etc.)
Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think people should be talking about that more? I would think people aren't talking about it much because, well, it's kind of obvious.
There is a narrative that melting permafrost is new and some kind of global catastrophe. That narrative falls apart if we point out that there's really nothing new going on. Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
The earth was once a hot fireball, so if for any strange reason it would turn into one again we can all be relieved, say that isn't new and post funny "this is fine" dogs? What kind of logic is that.
Time scales are huge, 1 year is different than 100 years than 100000 years than 1 million years.. what's "new" is very relative, come on.
You really want to still state today that global warming (to what permafrost thawing relates) is a narrative?
> Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Why you mean not? Does it matter if at that time fewer than 100 millions of humans inhabitated earth, and now we have billions.. and more than the number above will be threatened by sea level rise?
Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think people should be talking about that more? I would think people aren't talking about it much because, well, it's kind of obvious.
There is a narrative that melting permafrost is new and some kind of global catastrophe. That narrative falls apart if we point out that there's really nothing new going on. Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
You make two mistakes here which are very common in this topic. One, just because there have been plants where there is permafrost before, doesn't mean there is nothing new about this event. Everybody who studies a little bit about climate change will soon learn that the real problem isn't the change perse, its how fast it is happening. And that is also quite unprecedented.
Second, and most fatally, yes there was a lot of vegetation there. There was also a time when there were plants on the antarctic. The sea levels were 20 meter higher back then, which may give you a clue it could be a slight problem, as you yourself indicate.
There were mass extinction events before. Natural or not, some people might say they would feel humankind going extinct or almost so is exactly what a catastrophe is, pointing out something similar has happened before doesn't make it any better.
So no, the narrative doesn't fall apart. Furthermore, it is not a narrative in the first place, it is a risk assesment based on scientific understanding. There is no drama, just facts and theories. The hand-wavy 'it is all natural thus its good because we live in a just world and that magically makes everything okay and eco-logical and stuff', now that is a narrative.
Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think people should be talking about that more? I would think people aren't talking about it much because, well, it's kind of obvious.
There is a narrative that melting permafrost is new and some kind of global catastrophe. That narrative falls apart if we point out that there's really nothing new going on. Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Why bother to thaw out a turkey, just throw it in the oven. It couldn't possibly matter how quickly the temperature changes.