Melting permafrost called threat to climate

Speaking of studies, they just figured that scientists just made a mistake in naming permafrost.

Semi-permafrost?

JTF wrote:Speaking of studies, they just figured that scientists just made a mistake in naming permafrost.

Exactly, another reason not to believe all the scientific reports...they couldn't even get that right.

rosencrentz wrote:
We have 95% of our power supplied by renewable hydro. We have all the fresh water resources that we need, so we are in excellent shape , to be in excellent shape in 500 years , when our vehicles will run on batteries that need recharging, when we have to cool our buildings, heat our buildings with electricity.

No we don't....the glacier melt is happening at an exponential rate.....the cycles of snow and ice and rains, which feed our watershed which powers the dams, are being affected....when the glaciers are gone so too, all too soon will the flow of waters be slowed......the north has been in a drought for years....

Water will be more valuable in the years to come than oil.

What I don't understand is how people can find it acceptable to just dump sh1t into the atmosphere and say "oh it won't do anything", and find this more acceptable than dumping sh1t into the ocean or on land, when people also used to say "oh it won't do anything". Then all of a sudden the oceans began having drastic algae blooms and animals began showing signs of being affected by pollution and human garbage. Then and only then did people start to care. In other words, the so-called intelligent human race always wait until things are at their worst in order to do something about it. The land, ocean AND air are all examples of the tragedy of the commons.

Gee, I guess smog is a figment of our imagination too.


OH, and for those who don't know, coral reef habitats all around the world are being affected by a massive change in the temperature of the ocean, they are dying off in massive amount every year. This is causing a collaps of ocean ecosystems like never seen before, nothing that would considered "normal" anyways. The glaciers melting, coral reefs becoming "bleached" to death by increasing temperatures; the melting of polar icecaps at alarming rates; I guess the world needs to be on it's death bed before some realize that actions have implications.

EdWin wrote:What I don't understand is how people can find it acceptable to just dump sh1t into the atmosphere and say "oh it won't do anything", and find this more acceptable than dumping sh1t into the ocean or on land, when people also used to say "oh it won't do anything". Then all of a sudden the oceans began having drastic algae blooms and animals began showing signs of being affected by pollution and human garbage. Then and only then did people start to care. In other words, the so-called intelligent human race always wait until things are at their worst in order to do something about it. The land, ocean AND air are all examples of the tragedy of the commons.

Gee, I guess smog is a figment of our imagination too.

I've never heard anyone argue that pollution doesn't do anything.

Of course it does/can.

I think the argument is about the "gloom/doom" being presented by the so-called "experts" who say all the changes are happening over the next 10 years.

Things ARE changing...granted perhaps slowly...but it's been thousands of years of development to get to this point...and it will probably take hundreds-thousands of years for things to reverse.

But they ARE changing.

AGEsAces wrote:

EdWin wrote:What I don't understand is how people can find it acceptable to just dump sh1t into the atmosphere and say "oh it won't do anything", and find this more acceptable than dumping sh1t into the ocean or on land, when people also used to say "oh it won't do anything". Then all of a sudden the oceans began having drastic algae blooms and animals began showing signs of being affected by pollution and human garbage. Then and only then did people start to care. In other words, the so-called intelligent human race always wait until things are at their worst in order to do something about it. The land, ocean AND air are all examples of the tragedy of the commons.

Gee, I guess smog is a figment of our imagination too.

I've never heard anyone argue that pollution doesn't do anything.

Of course it does/can.

I believe anyone who says that dumping carbon into the atmosphere won't have an affect is essentially saying that they believe it won't do anything.

EdWin wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:

EdWin wrote:What I don't understand is how people can find it acceptable to just dump sh1t into the atmosphere and say "oh it won't do anything", and find this more acceptable than dumping sh1t into the ocean or on land, when people also used to say "oh it won't do anything". Then all of a sudden the oceans began having drastic algae blooms and animals began showing signs of being affected by pollution and human garbage. Then and only then did people start to care. In other words, the so-called intelligent human race always wait until things are at their worst in order to do something about it. The land, ocean AND air are all examples of the tragedy of the commons.

Gee, I guess smog is a figment of our imagination too.

I've never heard anyone argue that pollution doesn't do anything.

Of course it does/can.

I believe anyone who says that dumping carbon into the atmosphere won't have an affect is essentially saying that they believe it won't do anything.

You need to remember...these "experts" are the same ones who said smoking a cigarette won't do anything to your lungs

You need a vacation EdWin.

AGEsAces wrote:

EdWin wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:

EdWin wrote:What I don't understand is how people can find it acceptable to just dump sh1t into the atmosphere and say "oh it won't do anything", and find this more acceptable than dumping sh1t into the ocean or on land, when people also used to say "oh it won't do anything". Then all of a sudden the oceans began having drastic algae blooms and animals began showing signs of being affected by pollution and human garbage. Then and only then did people start to care. In other words, the so-called intelligent human race always wait until things are at their worst in order to do something about it. The land, ocean AND air are all examples of the tragedy of the commons.

Gee, I guess smog is a figment of our imagination too.

I've never heard anyone argue that pollution doesn't do anything.

Of course it does/can.

I believe anyone who says that dumping carbon into the atmosphere won't have an affect is essentially saying that they believe it won't do anything.

You need to remember...these "experts" are the same ones who said smoking a cigarette won't do anything to your lungs

You mean the experts that say dumping carbon into the atmosphere isn't having an effect? Yes I agree. And that is what scares me.

I'll say it again; tragedy of the common. Dumping carbon into the atmosphere has an affect, plain and simple. As much of an affect as tree that are being cut down that help transform CO2 into O2. Maybe once the glaciers are all gone and the prairies have lost 90% of their water sources. Maybe once the Great Lakes dry up. Maybe once all the polar ice melts and all the world coastlines and major cities that inhabit these coastlines are under salt water. Maybe once the ocean finally collapes completely. Maybe once all the cumulative effects of overhunting, deforrestation, mining oil and gas, dumping sh1t on the land, in the water and yes in the atmosphere maybe people will begin to see the complete picture. Maybe.......

grumpy old man wrote:You need a vacation EdWin.

Why?

(ps, I am on vacation )

what percent of smog is carbon? what else makes up smog? (i;m actually curious, i dont know the answer)

i'm not saying that dumping pollution into the atmosphere is better than dumping it into the ocean,

i'm saying the big threat is not carbon. its the other crap that goes into the air. all this scare over carbon is bull***t as far as i;m concerned. it (carbon) has not been proven definitively one way or the other to have any effect on the climate, while there are plenty of other pollutants being pumped up there that no one ever hears about or cares about that are far more harmful to our health and the health of the atmosphere.

answered my own question about the smog.

from wikipedia:

"This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone.
Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions.
This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:

• nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
  
• tropospheric ozone
  
• volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
  
• peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)
  
• aldehydes (R'O)
  

All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing."from canadian government site:"
What is smog?

Smog is a mixture of pollutants with ground-level ozone as the main component. Ground-level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds interact in the presence of sunlight. High up in the stratosphere, ozone protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays, but at ground level, it can be a harmful air pollutant.

About 95 per cent of nitrogen oxides that lead to the formation of smog, are produced when we burn fuels in our cars and trucks, or generate energy using combustion engines, combustion turbines, industrial boilers and power plants. Nitrogen oxides are related to other atmospheric problems such as climate changes and acid rain.

Volatile organic compounds are also necessary to produce smog. They come from the evaporation of liquid solvents and fuels such as gasoline or barbecue starter fluid, and from oil-based paint.

What causes summer smog?
On hot and sunny summer days, stagnant air can trap pollutants and, when combined with sunlight, result in unacceptable levels of ground-level ozone. Since ground-level ozone concentrations are generally highest when the sun’s intensity is at its maximum, smog levels peak in mid-afternoon, and fall rapidly in the evening when the sun goes down. The pollutants build up over time, so anything people can do to reduce individual contributions to smog is beneficial to air quality, not only on high pollution days, but every day."

so.... what does smog have to do with carbon again?? carbon is not at all a part of that problem, its the other crap we spew into the air.