
Massive permafrost thaw documented in Canada, portending huge carbon release - anigbrowl
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia
======
RandyRanderson
Sea level rise is neither the largest nor most immediate threat of climate
change.

Water happens to have one of the highest, and I would argue, the most
important thermal capacity of all the compounds we're likely to come into
contact with daily. Water has about 5-10x the heat capacity of most common
things and so heating up the all the oceans by say 2 degs average is an
_ENORMOUS_ amount of energy.

Why is this important? The reason we have climate refugees today is not the
water level but rather the higher intensity storms that the warmer waters
spawn. Far before ppl are forced from the shores by rising waters they will be
forced from the shores by massive, frequent, destructive storms that, instead
of say destroying 1/1000 homes, will destroy 1/100\. Eventually it will be
economically non-viable to live in storm-prone zones. And those zones will
increase in size over time to go far inland (away from fresh water), causing
more migration.

This is happening _NOW_ and will be a major factor in the lives of all our
children.

It's easy for ppl to dismiss rising sea levels because it doesn't seem
dangerous and happens over decades. It's far harder for ppl to dismiss weather
disasters that they might have some first or second handed experience of or,
more likely, a visceral fear of.

Maybe we should have a different metric? So instead of sea rise/year we should
have expected floridian homes destroyed/year.

~~~
abtinf
You claim that the scenario you describe is happening "NOW". Could you provide
a citation for that claim? Or even better, are people betting money that it is
true, as might be represented with a greater-than-inflation rise in premiums
for flood insurance, home owners insurance, or umbrella insurance in the
affected geographies?

~~~
theseadroid
[https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/](https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/)

>The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well
as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all
increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and
natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated
storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate
continues to warm.

~~~
Udik
Bad information. From the noaa website [0], a more scientific assessment
reports:

"It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse
gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact
on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity."

So no detectable increase (even statistically, which I consider to be a much
weaker requirement than actual subjective experience).

[0] [https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-
hurricanes/](https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/)

~~~
pdm55
Scientific article examining the downward trend in Australia's cyclone numbers
:
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl2.502/full](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl2.502/full)
Long‐term changes in Australian tropical cyclone numbers

"Numerous data quality checks were used in this study, as noted above, and
there are no known systematic errors in the observations or analyses that
would be likely to produce the decreasing trend in TC #s examined here. This
suggests the possibility that the downward trend may be associated with
changes in environmental conditions. Studies such as Emanuel (2005) indicate
that the changes in various different environmental conditions that are
occurring due to anthropogenic influences are having an influence on TC
activity in some regions of the world. In the Australian region, one possible
physical explanation for a decreasing trend in TC #s could be a potential
long-term shift in environmental conditions towards a more El Niño-like state,
given that fewer TCs tend to occur in the Australian region during El Niño
than La Niña conditions. Although the NIN and SOI data used here did not show
a significant long-term trend, some studies suggest the possibility of a shift
towards more El Niño-like conditions, relating to a possible weakening of the
Walker circulation due to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations
(Vecchi et al., 2006; Power and Smith, 2007; Huang et al., 2013; DiNezio et
al., 2013). However, it is also noted that considerable uncertainty exists in
observed changes to the Walker circulation based on reanalyses (Compo et al.,
2011)."

------
AaronFriel
As no one has mentioned it in the comments, the belief that this is concerning
is related to the "Clathrate gun hypothesis"[1].

Essentially, low temperatures have allowed vast quantities of methane and
carbon dioxide containing compounds to accumulate for millennia. If the
temperatures rise above a critical threshold, a positive feedback loop would
exist between temperatures and global warming.

Positive feedback loops are scary.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)

~~~
idoh
The feedback loop peaks out at a global temperature increase of 5-8 degrees
celsius, if the models and past events are to be believed:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum)

~~~
neotek
Isn't a 5 - 8 degree rise catastrophic though? Genuine question.

~~~
lisper
Depends on what you consider catastrophic. 5-8C means you lose both the
Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, so you get 60m (200 ft) sea-level rise, so
you totally lose all the coastal cities, and the current round of civilization
is almost certainly done for. But homo sapiens will probably survive, and so
civilization will probably eventually be rebuilt. It won't be the end of life
on earth under any circumstances.

Actually, the biggest danger is that political instability brought on by
climate change will lead to nuclear war. That would be much worse than losing
civilization to climate change because it would happen much faster,
essentially instantaneously. That is not at all unlikely even under much more
modest warming scenarios.

~~~
hueving
Why would civilization be over? The sea rise wouldn't happen over night and
people would move or build walls.

~~~
drdrey
We already have tremendous political instability in the US and Europe right
now caused in part by a not-so-great-but-not-devastating economy and the
Syrian refugee crisis. Imagine a worldwide crisis with tens or hundreds of
millions of people losing their homes and livelihood, how is that going to
play out?

~~~
taneliv
40% of global population lives in coastal areas of lesser elevation than
50m.[1] That is more like 3 billion people. Syrian refugee crisis seems quite
insignificant in comparison. Of course, only one of those is currently
underway, and we don't really know how fast sea levels will rise.

[1]
[http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodolog...](http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets/oceans_seas_coasts/pop_coastal_areas.pdf)

------
lend000
Geo-engineering projects could not come too soon.

Because of how grand they are in scale, they don't seem to get much attention
from the mainstream scientific community, but it seems feasible
technologically (albeit expensive) to put forth major projects to reflect
sunlight over deserts and capture significant amounts of carbon from power
plants and oceans, amongst numerous other creative approaches.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering#Proposed_s...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering#Proposed_strategies)

There was an article on HN recently about a new material that is excellent for
cooling due to radiating energy primarily in the long-wavelength infrared
spectrum. Just another option, just a matter of mass production and adoption.

~~~
peteretep

        > Geo-engineering projects could not 
        > come too soon
    

And also, treating climate-change deniers like a cross between holocaust
deniers and flat-earthers can't come soon enough.

~~~
programmernews3
We also need to treat people that ignore evidence of racial differences the
same then.

It is obvious to see - marathon runners, sprinters, etc

~~~
peteretep
We don't ignore it. There's just not very much high quality evidence, and —
unlike climate change — knowing that the distribution curve for blue vs green
people is shifted over 5 IQ points gives virtually nobody any actionable
information. Generally, in fact, it's leapt upon by people who don't
understand the evidence or enough statistics as a cover for their prejudice.

------
rodionos
Yet another proof that we're all in the same boat on this one.

The craters in Siberia:

\- [http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170223-in-siberia-there-
is-...](http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170223-in-siberia-there-is-a-huge-
crater-and-it-is-getting-bigger)

\-
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Batagaika+Crater/@67.58752...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Batagaika+Crater/@67.5875202,134.7422223,7634m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5bbfe8605f075181:0x5c183f59b6ae6d2!8m2!3d67.5804711!4d134.7728746)

------
josho
I remember reading (probably about 2 decades ago) that if we were to loose the
permafrost the resulting release of CO2 would lead to runaway warming.

I haven't read that concern recently, so I'm hopeful that scientists no longer
feel that way, but it is alarming to see this day has come.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Last I heard, scientists still feel that way, but they've gotten burned-out on
trying to explain to the public exactly how doomed we actually are.

~~~
tornadoboy55
Yeah, the common sentiment is 'the best time to take action was 40 years ago.
The absolute limit was 20 years ago. There's no stopping it now, even if we
reduce our emissions to _zero_. The latent emissions in the atmosphere will
already bone us. I'm glad I live in the Netherlands. We're a very rich
country, and we have been battling water for more than a thousand years as a
people. Places like Bangladesh will be completely destroyed..

~~~
hackuser
> the common sentiment is 'the best time to take action was 40 years ago. The
> absolute limit was 20 years ago. There's no stopping it now

My impression is that this is the latest fallback position intended to
stop/delay us from acting (I don't know that the parent commenter intends it
that way; this isn't a criticism of them). In rough order:

1) There is no global warming

2) There is global warming, but it's not caused by humans

3) It's caused by humans but there is nothing we can do about it.

4) We can do something about it, but it's too expensive to be worthwhile.

5) It's cost-effective (because the cost of doing nothing is so high), but
it's too late to act.

6) ? Any predictions for the next fallback argument?

~~~
greggman
I'm curious what you expect people to do and what you're doing yourself.

I worry about climate change and so do most of my friends but I see ZERO
action on any of our parts. Example: Nearly all my friends FLEW to GDC this
week, many of them that's a HUGE amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere just so
we can have fun, network and party. Then we go to BBQ and hamburger
restaurants and eat lots of beef which we're told we shouldn't because it's
the biggest resource user for the smallest amount of food. Many of them
upgrade their $!000 phone every year as well as several other electronic
gadgets creating lots of electronic waste.

My point is, even the majority of "believers" won't change their behavior. At
most if you're lucky they might start carrying their own bag to the grocery
store yet still probably have 15+ pairs of shoes for "fashion" (yet another
industry people claim is bad for the environment"

If the believers won't change their behavior what chance is there the non-
believers will do anything?

If the only solution is "vote for a world government to geo-engineer the
planet" well that's never going to happen.

Is the only rational thing to do, figure out where the new beachfronts will be
and start buying property while it's cheap (like Lex Luthor from the first
Superman movie)

~~~
pg314
I've become vegetarian, and have never owned a car. I've still got my 8 year
old Nokia instead of buying the latest iPhone. My shoes are 10 years old (but
well maintained and high quality, so you wouldn't be able to tell, except that
they are not the latest fashion).

It's your decision to keep ignoring the problem. Nobody else taking action
does not absolve you from your responsibility.

As a bonus, scaling down your consumption means your money goes much further.
Early retirement (think thirties), is not impossible. If you're interested in
these ideas, I've enjoyed reading [1].

[1] [http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/)

------
Animats
Soon, the Northwest Passage should be open year round. It's close now.

~~~
iaw
Ironic if Russia doesn't even need the Crimean peninsula because of global
warming.

------
blisterpeanuts
I'm curious how much this phenomenon might affect CO2 levels compared to the
deforestation of the Amazon, which I have read in the past is the single most
disastrous human action when it comes to climate. The Amazon forest is vast
and produces a significant percentage of the world's oxygen. The balance we
have seen the past few thousand years is being upset not only by industrial
pollution but by depriving the world of its CO2-to-O2 conversion machinery in
Amazon as well as the ocean algae. A reduction in algae, which seems to be
happening and is possibly due to pollution, will be catastrophic. There is
also the methane deposits on the ocean floor that are being released because
of increased acidity caused by CO2. This is creating a deadly cycle that may
be accelerating the greenhouse effect.

I doubt that there's anything we humans can do at this point other than
preserve and restore the Amazon, stop polluting as much as possible, and pray.

 _Earth_ by David Brin is a very good novel that describes a grim future some
40 years hence. It goes off into pure sci-fi regarding black holes bouncing
around the earth's core, but the predictions in the novel seem pretty
realistic. He speculates that as the Northern Territories and the Siberian
tundra thaw, people will move north and build towns to get away from the
increasingly tropical conditions in previously moderate latitudes.

Something not touched upon in that novel but which we are seeing today is the
spread of tropical diseases like zika into new areas. This is one of the
scariest prospects, actually; the next great plague will probably come from a
previously unknown tropical virus or bacterium.

I hope the Mars colonization project proceeds apace.

~~~
throwaway2048
even the most inhospitable places on earth (even post global warming) are far
far more hospitable than the best places on mars.

~~~
TillE
Right. You can at least breathe in Antarctica.

And terraforming Mars would be several orders of magnitude more expensive than
even a massive readjustment of Earth's climate.

~~~
mikegioia
Expensive? By all measurements it's impossible.

~~~
kerbalspacepro
Then why do engineers/scientists keep talking about how they'd do it.

------
rebuilder
This seems like a huge issue, and frankly I'm terrified by it. That said,
what's with the article?

Where are the numbers? How much of a contribution is this likely to have on
atmospheric CO2 levels? All this says is "bad news everyone", but doesn't
quantify it.

~~~
monochromatic
> The study didn't address the issue of greenhouse gas releases from thawing
> permafrost

The article breathlessly pretends this isn't the case.

------
drallison
The permafrost thaw and associated carbon release is not new. For example,
David Lawrence presented a model of its impact in the Stanford EE380
Colloquium on April 5, 2006, over a decade ago. The talk is no longer online,
but his slides and abstract are available.
[http://ee380.stanford.edu/Abstracts/060405.html](http://ee380.stanford.edu/Abstracts/060405.html)
The phenomenon and its impact were not a new discovery even then.

------
dimitri-gnidash
I understand how the personal responsibility plays into the climate change and
already follow most of the best practices: biking to the office, driving
electric (Ontario electricity), energy conservation at home, reducing
consumption, but feel that I can do more.

Can someone suggest a few environmental charities that can be donated to?

~~~
layoric
No sure if you already do this, and know it has been said 1000xs before, but
seriously, reducing/cutting meat consumption is probably one of the
largest/cheapest impacts you can have for the personal cost.

[https://foodtechconnect.com/2014/01/17/infographic-of-the-
we...](https://foodtechconnect.com/2014/01/17/infographic-of-the-week-facts-
figures-of-global-animal-production/)

And if you have the financial means to take the risk to be picky about your
job (and are technically inclined), have a read of Bret Victor's "What can a
technologist do about climate change?" post, so much to be done assuming it's
not all too late already.

[http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/](http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/)

Most charities are about damage control, not dealing with the problem.

Another option, is invest in a Solar Share program if they are available in
your country. Possibility for good returns and helps build more solar energy.

------
Gravityloss
What I've come to realize now, with the feedback mechanisms, the denialists
can keep at it forever. Look, the CO2 is really coming from the permafrost,
not coal! It's coming from the oceans! (Which some people have already claimed
to me.)

------
cozzyd
I wonder what will happen to the National Flood Insurance Program when Florida
is underwater.

~~~
giardini
They send payment via USPS: "The check is in the mail."

Hey, hey! Why the downvote? I thought it was funny: your mailbox underwater,
you swimming out to get the check....

[sigh]Oh, well, no fun here...

------
dri_ft
Wow. Nice to see the verb "portending" in a headline. Not one you see often
nowadays.

------
lacampbell
My one crumb of comfort will be seeing the expensive coastal houses of
property investors be destroyed.

I really should get some land high above sea level while it's still cheap and
undesirable.

~~~
r00fus
hah, you jest. The rich will simply appeal to local, state and federal levels
to ensure backstopping of any property damage reinsurance claims for "acts of
nature".

You and I will foot their bill because they have more representation than we
do.

