Climatic changes leading to thawing of permafrost in Seberia

[Charles-Tim]

BBC News - Siberia landscape scarred by climate change
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-54195656

I will like you people to click on the link above, you can check (in a video) how scientists are warning about the issue of global warning which is as a result of green house gasses which are produced as a result of human activities like deforestation and industrial gaeses produced as waste etc. Now in Siberia, scientists are warning that the frozen grounds in the country also known as the permafrost are thawing (changing from solid to liquid), in such a way certain areas can even turn into lake.

I have a post about global warming on 'politics and society board'. It reveals what green houses gases are and the danger they can pose later in the future. Aside this news, there are other news I have read about how global warming is also turning the ice in the Antarctica and Greenland Denmark into water adding to the rising water sea level.

Global warming is real, the world now know that as it is evident in the rising temperature in the world, many ice bags are melting, this is noticed in Denmark and many regions of the world and it is due to the increase in the heat from the sun that is reaching the earth, the water sea level is yearly increasing. It has also been said that increase in water level in the next 10 years will be more and will be mainly due to global warming.

Three positions on global warming are:

1. That global warming is not occurring and so neither is climate change
2. That global warming and climate change are occurring, but these are natural, cyclic events unrelated to human activity
3. That global warming is occurring as a result primarily of human activity and so climate change is also the result of human activity

But, if we can reason with the scientists, we will believe that global warming is mainly due to human activities because carbon particles and many other green house gases have been linked to it, it makes the sun heat to penetrate more into the earth.

The green house gases are
CO2 or carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous oxide in parean (laughing gas)
Fluorinated gases
Sulphur hexafluoride

These gases including black carbon can be responsible for global warming, that is why they should not be too much in the atmosphere but there should be some natural produced ones like CO2 to certain extent so that the world will not become too cold in a way sun will not be able to penetrate certain amount of heat also. So, the concetraction of the green house gasses are to certain level. If low, it will result to cold earth and if too much, it will lead to warm earth (global warming). But out of all, scientists link CO2 more to global warming.

The trees breath in CO2 in a way it takes up carbon, but in the world of today, trees are reducing due to several human activities, this decrease the amount of CO2 intake by tress. Humans also increase, and we breath out CO2, and contribute to the atmospheric carbon. Also there many ways CO2 and those green houses gasses listed above are produced by human activities, leading to global warming.





From the above graph, you will noticed how carbon emitted into the atmosphere as been increasing drastically which is linked to human activities.

Specifically, gases released primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the tiny particles produced by incomplete burning trap the sun’s energy in the atmosphere. Scientists call these gases “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) because they act like the wrong way reflective glass in our global greenhouse. Scientists call the tiny particles ‘black carbon’ (you call it soot or smoke) and attribute their warming effect to the fact that the resulting layer of black particles in the lower atmosphere absorbs heat like a black blanket.

Scientists date the beginning of the current warming trend to the end of the 18th or beginning of the 19th century when coal first came into common use. This warming trend has accelerated as we have increased our use of fossil fuels to include gasoline, diesel, kerosene and natural gas, as well as the petrochemicals (plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers) we now make from oil.

Scientists attribute the current warming trend to the use of fossil fuels because using them releases into the atmosphere stores of carbon that were sequestered (buried) millions of years ago. The addition of this “old” carbon to the world’s current stock of carbon, scientists have concluded, is what is heating our earth which causes global warming.

We people in the world should be able to regulate the green house gases in a constant state in a way it will not be less or too much so that we can maintain certain amount of heat emitted by the sun that will penetrate into the earth.



https://warmheartworldwide.org/climate-change/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw1qL6BRCmARIsADV9Jtab3-PqpH49u3InIbSMHXp9juFPyJ_NTqmv5MCBGC9K6NF456NWek8aAkuOEALw_wcB

[Spendulus]

...

We people in the world should be able to regulate the green house gases in a constant state in a way it will not be less or too much so that we can maintain certain amount of heat emitted by the sun that will penetrate into the earth.
....

What temperature would you set the world at?

[franky1]

i am not a climate change denier. i beleive human intervention has caused more changes than nature has..

but
my issue is that the 100-400parts per million of carbon is not sufficient enough to cause a change to the magnitude media is spouting

the science is that water cools and warms the planet more depending on how much precipitation an area has
water content in area's has more variety of thousands of parts per million
(average 40,000parts of water vapour vs carbons measily 400parts)

so think of logic experiment
if nasa is trying to use water/hydrogen 'shield' to protect astraunauts from the solar rays. a 40centimeter thick 'hard water' shield would ratio to only a millimetre thick carbon skin if we were to use the ratios.
however nasa isnt using a 1mm thick carbon shield and still trying to figure out how to use water on the moon/mars potential colonies as the shield.

ask yourself why is nasa concentrating on hydrogen/water for its space projects

think about it
if they needed 40,000 hydogen parts but need only 400 carbon parts. then why the hell does the space station have a hydrogen rich shield around the crews cabin and not a carbon rich shield

just think about that

yes carbon affects human lungs and the photosynthesis balance
but water/hydrogen has a bigger connection to the atmosphere/solar radiation shield

i hope you atleast take a bit of time to look at the science of water/hydrogen..

as for permafrost.
many countries are actually digging into the ground. greenland/iceland geothermal energy production is affecting their land more
damming rivers to reduce water in the ground causes less aquifers thus less permafrost
yep 'active permafrost' melts and refreezes each year. but if less water is re-flowing in that area during summer to soak into the land. its not freezing in winter to protect the underlayers.
when active layer of permafrost melts and flows down . but no new water is put into the land to re-freeze. then the new active later net year is a couple feet lower. rinse and repeat.. or should i say dry out and repeat
..
as for thinking that the arctic is melting
in the 1960s they had a science station up there. and abandoned it. they returned and found that its now covered by 100feet of ice..
100feet extra ice ontop
the real science fear is if that melts then it will release the nuclear waste that station was holding which is more dangerous than a 1^oc average temperature change

yep they are worried about the nuclear waste release from that station more then the icemelt itself
(Camp Century: project iceworm)

[Charles-Tim]

What temperature would you set the world at?

To know more about world's temperature, you will like this article:
https://www.co2.earth/global-warming-update

Also, know that the world's temperature is increasing every year due to the greenhouse cases. I hope you will find the link above useful.

[Spendulus]

What temperature would you set the world at?

To know more about world's temperature, you will like this article:
https://www.co2.earth/global-warming-update

Also, know that the world's temperature is increasing every year due to the greenhouse cases. I hope you will find the link above useful.

Thanks, but I'll skip your link because you skipped answering my question.

[coins4commies]

Temperatures in like 1870 or before the industrial revolution are more like what "should be".  Temperatures now are ~1 degree warmer which is a problem.  Another degree of warming will create much more serious problems and 3 degrees would begin to be catastrophic for a lot of people.  4 degrees would be catastrophic for billions of people and reality challenge the global political/societal structure. 

[Spendulus]

Temperatures in like 1870 or before the industrial revolution are more like what "should be".  Temperatures now are ~1 degree warmer which is a problem.  Another degree of warming will create much more serious problems and 3 degrees would begin to be catastrophic for a lot of people.  4 degrees would be catastrophic for billions of people and reality challenge the global political/societal structure.  

Shall we reset to the conditions of 1814? That was the date of the last Fair held on a frozen River Thames in London.

Wait...1814? It's been getting warmer since then? That can't be due to man's CO2 emissions, in the 19th century...

So why is that what "should be?"

[franky1]

Temperatures in like 1870 or before the industrial revolution are more like what "should be".

im sorry. but 1800-1900 england had the london thames frost fairs (river froze over) and ireland had the potato blight

so forgive me for saying this but england had good harvests during the middle ages and then in the 18-19th century of smoggy london industry .. it got colder

london has less carbon/smog now.. yep we do not have homes that employ chimney sweeps. due to all the soot polution of back then has gone
so foggy smokey rainy london.. vs sunny clear sky london of today.. kinda debunks the carbon interference

oh and by the way for 100's of years potato has been a stable vegetable of the UK. yet modern farming is prefering to farm potato by buying land in.. guess.. egypt. because UK climate is getting worse

yes we might get a couple weeks of 30+^oc but we are getting a heck of alot of cold days

what people dont get is the drying out of land due to the water cycle changes. and the deforestation of the amazon is causing less water and less tree brush. thus more warmer winds to send more storms up the gulf through the atlantic to  northern europe
and also from the pacific side of the south america. going north west up the pacific to the asian/siberian regions

but this high 'monsoon' style water doesnt get to soak into the dry lands to cool the land and stay there for  winter. thus the water cycle changes over the last 100 years
yep before carbon industry was the farmland industry. water mills and diverting rivers caused changes before coal was burned.

enjoy some research using science and history and not climate change activist websites

climate change is real and man made.. but carbon is not the big trigger media says it is
water cycle causes more issues

..
in the UK we do not pretend this/nextweek temperature by measuring carbon. instead we look at where the main storms are. if wind is coming from the north east (from the arctic) we will get colder days. if we are getting wind from the south we get warmer days
rain is guaged on if winds are from the east (continent of lack of water) or west(atlantic ocean) and we can tell how wet we are going to get it.. all without having to check for carbon levels

[Gyfts]

4th position: Global warming is occurring but there haven't been any real solutions proposed that would solve the problem and not collapse the world economy by eliminating traditional energy sources.

[Spendulus]

Temperatures in like 1870 or before the industrial revolution are more like what "should be".

im sorry. but 1800-1900 england had the london thames frost fairs (river froze over) and ireland had the potato blight

so forgive me for saying this but england had good harvests during the middle ages and then in the 18-19th century of smoggy london industry .. it got colder....

I find it a bit curious that people and organizations that claim to have science backing them, who want to take control of carbon emissions away from the populations, cannot clearly and simply tell us what temperature they would set the Earth to, if they were given that power.

How are we to know they are not just some Marxist con artists that just want the power?

[coins4commies]

The UK is not "the world".   No one wants to set the Earth to a temperature because we all know Earth's temperature is not static.  We just want to let the temperature fluctuate the way it would naturally without all of the additional carbon dioxide.

Also, even if you ignore all of the climate change stuff, you should still be alarmed about our carbon emissions collapsing the global economy via ocean acidification.   

We can have a vibrant global economy with net emissions at zero but we cannot have a vibrant global economy if we realize the consequences of unchecked carbon emissions.   

[Spendulus]

The UK is not "the world".   No one wants to set the Earth to a temperature because we all know Earth's temperature is not static.  We just want to let the temperature fluctuate the way it would naturally without all of the additional carbon dioxide.

Also, even if you ignore all of the climate change stuff, you should still be alarmed about our carbon emissions collapsing the global economy via ocean acidification.  

We can have a vibrant global economy with net emissions at zero but we cannot have a vibrant global economy if we realize the consequences of unchecked carbon emissions.  

But you guys do conjure up "global temperatures". Because you say things like "The Earth is 1 degree warmer than ...."

Now, when I ask what temperature you'd set the planet to, suddenly you can't or won't answer.

Look, we all know you want to steal or rob all you can from those despicable capitalists. What's wrong with asking "How Much?" Even when I gas up my 6 mile per gallon truck, I'm concerned with the price of gas.

[coins4commies]

The whole premise is that we shouldn't be altering the Earth's temperature at all so asking what temperature we want to set it to is a flawed question.  We want to let it set itself.

[Febo]

It is crazy how high temperatures rise in summer time in Siberia. I expected they dont go much over 0 degree Celsius, but I was so wrong.   Oh and more such changes as permafrost melting will happen on Earth more chances fro viruses like covid-19 we will have.  Maybe covid-20 was frozen in permafrost for 1000 years and will get alive and kicking tomorrow. Ready to spread everywhere. 

[Spendulus]

The whole premise is that we shouldn't be altering the Earth's temperature at all so asking what temperature we want to set it to is a flawed question.  We want to let it set itself.

But if you can claim that we have set it to 1 degree higher, then why is it flawed to ask what we should set it to?

Really, do you not even know how to answer this question? Because it so, there's no reason anyone should listen to your alarmist propaganda about climate.

[Spendulus]

It is crazy how high temperatures rise in summer time in Siberia. I expected they dont go much over 0 degree Celsius, but I was so wrong.   Oh and more such changes as permafrost melting will happen on Earth more chances fro viruses like covid-19 we will have.  Maybe covid-20 was frozen in permafrost for 1000 years and will get alive and kicking tomorrow. Ready to spread everywhere. 

But no permafrost, more bikinis on girls!

[Dorodha]

Global warming is melting ice, ice slabs, icebergs, and permafrost in the North and South Poles. As a result sea levels are rising while viruses and bacteria lurking beneath the permafrost are spreading like a plague to mankind and millions of tons of carbon beneath the permafrost are returning to the atmosphere warming the world. Permafrost is a special kind of frozen thin layer of soil sand and rock particles mixed on ice sheets in the polar region on which the people of the polar region grow crops build houses and travel climate change is caused by rising temperatures.

[franky1]

Temperatures in like 1870 or before the industrial revolution are more like what "should be".

im sorry. but 1800-1900 england had the london thames frost fairs (river froze over) and ireland had the potato blight

so forgive me for saying this but england had good harvests during the middle ages and then in the 18-19th century of smoggy london industry .. it got colder....

I find it a bit curious that people and organizations that claim to have science backing them, who want to take control of carbon emissions away from the populations, cannot clearly and simply tell us what temperature they would set the Earth to, if they were given that power.

How are we to know they are not just some Marxist con artists that just want the power?

best way to know is to actually test their theories
global warming term has flaws because its based on averages where each indicator that makes up the averages has some fault tolerance/error allowances. which can cause issues
also some places are getting colder so its not the whole globe actually warming up equally by 1oc. because some places are getting colder than 1oc

i prefer the term climate change term because different area's have different climates and each of them change in their own way.

once getting to that concept you can then start to work on the individual issues of each climate that distort each regions results

the RAIN forest has a purposeful reason for its name.. emphasis the rain.
science keeps talking about carbon absorbtion. and saying deforestation affects carbon. but the actual % of world carbon absorbtion shows the rain forest doesnt absorb that much over all

they estimate that rainforests equate to 2bill tonnes
the world absorbs 40bill tones(so rain forest is 5%)
however the atmosphere has 750billtonnes
thus the rain forests 2bill is only handling 0.26% of all atmosphere carbon
so shouting 'rainforests rainforest rainforests' wont change the atmospheric composition of carbon very much
double the amount of trees the rainforest has will only impact 0.26% extra absorbtion


rain forests do other great things. they change the temperature balance of the area to make it rain more. yep rain .. ill say it again rain.
the rain then runs through the ground to then have that nice thin layer to be evaporated easily from the ground around it and from the foliage.

but less water= higher temperature=less water=higher temperature
=drought on lower land thats no longer fueled by rainforest water sources. thus more land dries thus higher temperature

deforestation of rainforest and taking natural water cycle away and then only feeding the land with only just enough man piped sourced water to just feed the plant foliege of the farm and not the ground. doesnt help the situation

many places in america have seen their old rivers dammed up so farmers can no longer use old style stream/river/canal irrigated water. and instead rely on reservoir piped water which they ration out.
they also strart digging wells undergroond to get the underground aquifer water. but some places in america are drying out those sources too.
american farmers are finding less and less 'fertile' plots of land due to their own actions of rationing water/changing natural water cycle


when people say carbon makes temperature higher makes water dry out .. the actual equation is
diverting the water makes temperature rise

take the colorado river..

In its natural state, the river flowed all the way from the high plains of the Western U.S. to the Gulf of California in Mexico. But because it is so heavily tapped along the way for agriculture, industry, and municipal uses, it rarely reaches the ocean anymore. For a few short weeks in 2014, the U.S. and Mexico cooperated, allowing the waters to reach the ocean. An effort is underway to restore the flow permanently, but is unlikely to be implemented soon.

not one mention of carbon as the cause

california droughts are not called california smogs. its not like certain seaasons have high smog that causes temperature rise. its low water that causes temperature rise

once people recognise the actual causes of problems in their area and they do something about it. then they can change things.

EG we know in erope (mainly for gred of keeping low supply/high demand) they put in quota's to stop farmers farming as much. this has actually kind of helped not over farm some land. but the compensation they give should be allocated to let farmers plant mixed vegetation to refertilise the land. rather than leaving to to to go barren
reservoirs should collect some water. but not just hoard it because while keeping cooled /covered water in a reservoir. less water is evaporating for fresh supplies folowing seasons. thus they are slowly shooting themselves in the foot.

other things like using desalination plants to convert sea water into usable land /agriculture water
if they can afford to pipe whole cities for drinking/sewage pipes. then they can afford the opposite to pump in water from the ocean to cover the land they have made barren

[coins4commies]

The main concern over temperature rise is at the poles.  Thats where its warmed by as much as 5 degrees already.  Its the melting ice that sets off several other positive feedback loops and change the global conveyor affecting climates around the globe. 

[Spendulus]

...
global warming term has flaws because its based on averages where each indicator that makes up the averages has some fault tolerance/error allowances. which can cause issues
also some places are getting colder so its not the whole globe actually warming up equally by 1oc. because some places are getting colder than 1oc

i prefer the term climate change term because different area's have different climates and each of them change in their own way.....

It's possible to state a 'global temperature?' It's a system with gaseous, liquid and solid components moving between each other. So these clowns think you can stick a thermometer into a chamber with a multiple phase, non equilibrium solution and take its temperature?

Makes sense to stop listening to anything they say right at that point, because that's unscientific and ridiculous. But they're claiming to roll the oceans back too...

The main concern over temperature rise is at the poles.  Thats where its warmed by as much as 5 degrees already.  Its the melting ice that sets off several other positive feedback loops and change the global conveyor affecting climates around the globe.  

The Poles are quite unique, weather and climate wise. The Sun comes in at a high slant range, solar energy is distributed far less per square meter. That energy can be totally absorbed if there are clouds. But there is pretty much no water vapor in the air, so CO2 might be the primary atmospheric change item.

But air moves in a big loop, equator to pole and back to equator. So few polar events happens without cause from the equatorial and mid latitudes. I'm going to make an intelligent guess here that with the low sun angle, more co2 in the polar air isn't ever going to create a marked local heating element.

So you want to take control of everyone's use of energy in order to set the temperatures at the poles? What do you want to set them to?

Have you asked the Eskimos if they'd like it warmer or colder? I firmly believe they should have a say, as well as other racial and ethnic groups living in the region. Eskimo Lives Matter!