A vast expanse of western Siberia is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.

Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1546797,00.html

Oh, God. Now I REALLY feel guilty about learning to drive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1546797,00.html

You're picture is scary! :down:

Finally had some time to read the article ludi. You'd think more people would be ummmm...concerned.

B

Yea, I think if this stuff was actually broadcast and so informed the public there might be more concern, but people are still largely ignorant of it. That's a vast amount of methane to release into the atmosphere and will certainly have it's impact, but really already too late to do anything about. I suspect people believe that if things get really bad THEN we'll do something about it, not knowing it'll be way too late by then, and find it amazing that the government can't fix it somehow.

Finally had some time to read the article ludi. You'd think more people would be ummmm...concerned.

B

You'd think!
:worried:

When the temperatures hit 130 degrees in summer, the media will report it as an especially warm 98, and hurricanes wil become 'significant dampening events'.

Guys, CO2 and methane haven't been 100% proven to cause global warming. Why are you all getting your undies in a bunch?

Besides, the sustenance farmers will get the worse of it.

The majority of earth scientists agree those gases are involved in global climate change.

The majority of earth scientists agree those gases are involved in global climate change.okay but you also need to show that's anthropogenic.

It hasn't been 100% proven that 1 + 1 = 2, but I thinbk we can pretty sure.

It hasn't been 100% proven that 1 + 1 = 2, but I thinbk we can pretty sure.:dunce:

david hume would say, well no scientific observation really counts as proof, gravity could just stop working one day, creationists hold on to the idea that the theory of evolution can't be proven absolutely and tobacco companies can still claim they think addiction and cancer might be caused by the same genetic trait. but math is the one area that can be proven, there is a thing called a mathematical proof. It has been 100% proven that 1+1=2, so I'm calling your reasoning abilities into doubt, not that I haven't had my suspicions...

otomik, you've blown my cover, I am really stupid, thinking that environmental scientists would know about environmental stuff is just plain dumb, I should just go the the White House site for good sound info on all sorts of things, they wouldn't mislead me...

Guys, CO2 and methane haven't been 100% proven to cause global warming. Why are you all getting your undies in a bunch?

Besides, the sustenance farmers will get the worse of it.



Nope, just 99%.

okay but you also need to show that's anthropogenic.

I don't, actually. I'm not a climatologist, so it isn't my problem to figure out if it's anthropogenic.

It's not all that relevant to me whether it's anthropogenic, we still have to deal with the effects on our way of life.

otomik, you've blown my cover, I am really stupid, thinking that environmental scientists would know about environmental stuff is just plain dumb, I should just go the the White House site for good sound info on all sorts of things, they wouldn't mislead me...I'd rather you go to junkscience.com
http://www.junkscience.com/

I also think New Scientist reported this better than The Guardian
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500

Couldn't this permafrost issue have something to do with albedo, soot and the soviet environmental record? there are many climate change theories.

I don't, actually. I'm not a climatologist, so it isn't my problem to figure out if it's anthropogenic.

It's not all that relevant to me whether it's anthropogenic, we still have to deal with the effects on our way of life.I've been willing to deal with the effects, I don't feel like intentionally altering the climate.

It'll be darn tough on Europe if the Atlantic Conveyor shuts down. Very tough.

I'd rather you go to junkscience.com
http://www.junkscience.com/

So you would prefer for people to go to an explicit propaganda site for information? Junk science is excellent truth in advertising.

I also think New Scientist reported this better than The Guardian
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500

From that site:
Kirpotin describes an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He says that the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt, and this "has all happened in the last three or four years".

The warming is believed to be a combination of man-made climate change, a cyclical change in atmospheric circulation known as the Arctic oscillation, plus feedbacks caused by melting ice, which exposes bare ground and ocean. These absorb more solar heat than white ice and snow.

As a weekly reader of New Scientist, it frequetly reports on the overwhelming consensus that athropogenic human warming requires urgent action.

If the Bush Administration can accept that global warming is a reality and the Vatican can accept the theory of evolution why are so many ppl resistant to science? Why do editorials carry the same weight as primary source research in the US?

"He says that the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt, and this "has all happened in the last three or four years".




Can you say

"We're F***ED!"

As a weekly reader of New Scientist, it frequetly reports on the overwhelming consensus that athropogenic human warming requires urgent action.thanks, i just thought they carried the same story better, i suppose i could have taken it from a news service that would interject the same kind of sneering commentary daniel schor gives the bush administration, but chose not to. To me it's more of a question of how certain are we of the problem? how bad is the problem compared to how bad is the solution? do we get anything out of this solution if the problem wasn't as bad as we thought or non-existant? http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002D2C3.htm

Why do editorials carry the same weight as primary source research in the US?both sides are the filtered through the media, you're seeing only a few cherry picked scare mongering media darlings, remember the hole in the ozone?

the atlantic conveyor and methane hydrates always get a mention as a routes for sudden warming.

The deal came after Tony Blair struggled at the G8 summit to get the US president, George Bush, to commit to any concerted action on climate change and has been heavily criticised for setting no targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.



..i found that part irritating....it says alot about what america is....in my opinion..

thanks, i just thought they carried the same story better, i suppose i could have taken it from a news service that would interject the same kind of sneering commentary daniel schor gives the bush administration, but chose not to. To me it's more of a question of how certain are we of the problem? how bad is the problem compared to how bad is the solution? do we get anything out of this solution if the problem wasn't as bad as we thought or non-existant? http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002D2C3.htm

To answer the questions:
1: A broad scientfic consensus based on multiple lines of evidence is that as far as we can know, the problem exists.

2: A broad scientific consensus based on multiple lines of evidence is that even moderate increases in average temperatures is likely to have a large impact on argiculture and costal communities.

3: One of the things I like about New Scientist as a UK periodical is it's coverage of the UK's alternative energy initiatives as an economic move. As far as we can know, a lot of our easy fossil fuels are going the way of whale oil. The current administration's tendency to see this as a burden rather than an economic opportunity is short-sighted.

both sides are the filtered through the media, you're seeing only a few cherry picked scare mongering media darlings, remember the hole in the ozone?

You are looking at some scare mongering media darlings. I'm also looking at peer reviewed journals such as Science. And it's not like the ozone hole suddenly vanished.

People took me seriously? :sweat:

People took me seriously? :sweat:

Uh, yeah...you might be surprised how many people actually say such things with complete seriousness....
:brood: