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

Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#41

Post by csours »

Before reading, iron dissolving due to higher reactivity (including bacterial action) because temperatures are higher

___

After reading:

> "Scientists who have studied these rusting rivers agree that the ultimate cause is climate change. Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park. The heat may already have begun to thaw 40 percent of the park's permafrost"

> "Some researchers think acid from minerals is leaching iron out of bedrock that has been exposed to water for the first time in millennia. Others think bacteria are mobilizing iron from the soil in thawing wetlands."

___

Other thoughts: iron bearing silicates often contain gold. New gold rush?

-

Things like this have surely happened before but not while there were so many people around

Extinctions have happened before too, but that doesn't make them good

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#42

Post by JohnMakin »

itishappy wrote: post #13

> Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park. Holy shit. 10°C is currently the difference between NY and DC, or Ohio and the Gulf of Mexico, or Montana and Southern California...

This is what people don’t realize when we talk about “average” global temperature rise. 2 Celsius average doesn’t mean 2 Celsius everywhere - it means some regions are going to be much higher than that.

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#43

Post by dionian »

gmuslera wrote: post #4

They focused on the water color, acidity, and the effect on the fishes, but they are not putting enough stress in the elephants in the room, the 2.4+ºC increase of average temperature northern regions over very few years (not since preindustrial times) and the massive permafrost thawing that is happening there. Yes, it is causing this. And many more things in those regions and all the world, for more time than a sing…

Is it time that we finally addressed the massive escalation of fossil fuels by countries like china?

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#44

Post by javman »

phkahler wrote: post #34
mort96 wrote: post #19

Earlier 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 reason why melting permafrost is considered a global catastrophe is that it's a feedback loop that will accelerate warming. There is massive carbon that has been frozen in the permafrost. Permafrost melts > the organic matter decomposes > more CO2 released into atmosphere > warming happens faster.

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#45

Post by Johnny555 »

zardo wrote: post #40
phkahler wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can cook a frozen turkey, it just takes a little longer.

https://www.thespruceeats.com/cook-a-frozen-turkey-483280

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#46

Post by tejtm »

dionian wrote: post #43
gmuslera wrote: post #4

They focused on the water color, acidity, and the effect on the fishes, but they are not putting enough stress in the elephants in the room, the 2.4+ºC increase of average temperature northern regions over very few years (not since preindustrial times) and the massive permafrost thawing that is happening there. Yes, it is causing this. And many more things in those regions and all the world, for more time than a sing…

Is it time that we finally addressed the massive escalation of fossil fuels by countries like china?

I would settle for cleaning our own house and setting a good example

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#47

Post by kirubakaran »

gmuslera wrote: post #4

They focused on the water color, acidity, and the effect on the fishes, but they are not putting enough stress in the elephants in the room, the 2.4+ºC increase of average temperature northern regions over very few years (not since preindustrial times) and the massive permafrost thawing that is happening there. Yes, it is causing this. And many more things in those regions and all the world, for more time than a sing…

I don't think there are elephants in Alaska, let alone indoors, in rooms or otherwise.

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#48

Post by throwbadubadu »

troyvit wrote: post #24
samstave wrote: post #12

Earlier 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?

Nice philosophizing, but too simple. There definitely are constants in the universe, and dynamic things can stay pretty constant over looong time scales, think of stars, or something complicated as a solar system.. and then it is about rate of change at all levels.. what's nothing for me is the lifetime for a fruit fly, and I live merely a split seconds of our Earth's age.

And then there are humans, always against change ;) But some is reasonable, e.g. when life threatening conditions change. I step out of my house in freezing temperatures, if I don't do something I'll freeze.. I don't start philosophizing about where to restore it to, just wanna be safe and warm again.

I don't get all the clever insights. Environmentalism is already such a stupid term imo, this is not about saving the environment at all, or trying to keep the world the same. It is just human warranted egoism, about saving us.

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#49

Post by UncleOxidant »

csours wrote: post #41

Before reading, iron dissolving due to higher reactivity (including bacterial action) because temperatures are higher ___ After reading: > "Scientists who have studied these rusting rivers agree that the ultimate cause is climate change. Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than project…

> Other thoughts: iron bearing silicates often contain gold. New gold rush?

Could a significant amount of gold be extracted from the water that way? It would likely be a much more environmentally friendly way to mine gold given that there would be no digging required.

Re: Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?

#50

Post by crazygringo »

troyvit wrote: post #24
samstave wrote: post #12

Earlier 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?

That's not true over short-to-medium timeframes though.

There absolutely are equilibria in nature, all over the place. The idea of that "constant imbalance" is always the rule is simply false.

Now, as a rule at some point in time either an external force will interrupt things, or an energy source that was maintaining the equilibrium will run out. So no equilibrium will last indefinitely.

But an equilibrium can be maintained for an awfully long time -- much, much, much longer than you or I will be alive. It's not like populations are always either growing or shrinking. Absent man, they're generally extremely constant (allowing for seasonal oscillations and similar).

And to answer your question: when we seek to restore something, it's generally to as close as we can to the state of equilibirum it would be at without the industrial effects of man -- a level of rich biodiversity. We're almost never completely successful, but we can still do our best.

Post reply on HN