
Alaska’s thawing soils are now pouring carbon dioxide into the air - Mz
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/08/alaskas-tundra-is-filling-the-atmosphere-with-carbon-dioxide-worsening-climate-change/?utm_term=.da7f3e23dc07
======
taberiand
I wouldn't be surprised if such feedback loops have been excluded from the
models of climate change because they paint a picture so dire that no amount
of mitigation (if there were any serious attempts at mitigation going on)
could save our way of life.

"Sooner and worse than expected" is a phrase I expect to hear with increasing
frequency.

~~~
candiodari
It was never true that human industry was the main cause of co2 release into
the atmosphere.

Which is one of the reasons to doubt that all those climate accords will have
any influence on global warming at all.

> "Sooner and worse than expected" is a phrase I expect to hear with
> increasing frequency.

If you increase the input into self-reinforcing feedback loop that is exactly
what you'd expect to happen. Not that at that point it makes a large
difference, but it certainly makes _some_ difference.

Feedback loops are notoriously hard to mitigate.

~~~
castis
What if it's all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

~~~
jerf
Then trillions of dollars were extremely inefficiently allocated to the task
of creating better worlds and a much _better_ world could have been created
with that money instead, costing lives in the process.

Having noble goals doesn't immunize you from accounting.

~~~
alistproducer2
I recommend you read "Money: The Unauthorized Biography [0]" You'll never look
at money the same way again. Money is not a commodity even though we treat it
as such. It certainly is not a finite resource.

Plenty of money gets created everyday for thing far more stupid than trying to
save the world. Look at how much money has been created (and will be spent)
for no good reason at all in the current cryptocoin bubble. The massive
capital gains are going to be cashed out and spent somewhere, creating market
distortions, making people who contribute nothing insanely wealthy. Money is
not sacred. Better we use it to try and save the world than to treat it as if
it (and the market) are some all-wise, ever-perfect allocator of human and
natural resources.

[0]: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F1W0DAO/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F1W0DAO/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)

~~~
jerf
I already have an alternate view of money. I look at generalized wealth more
directly, with money merely an somewhat interesting special case that is less
special than most people think it is. (I tend to think even economists pay too
much attention to currency. Not that they pay attention _only_ to currency,
but that they pay _too much_ attention to it.) The simple truth is that if you
bend the economy towards creating wind and solar and cutting down hydrocarbon
usage and all the other things we have to do, all the people doing that stuff
as the result of a hoax aren't doing something else that would have been more
useful.

Money isn't the issue; finite time and resources are.

My point has nothing to do with how terrible capitalism is or any silly bete
noirs like that. It is simply the observation that if we waste our time on A,
we can't be using that time to do the better B. It sits at a level of
fundamental truth far below debates about economic systems or the nature of
money.

~~~
candiodari
I wonder where the theory that government spending is simply free actually
comes from, that somehow when the government spends money (or enacts
regulation or taxes, same thing) that the cost is somehow magically not that
everybody has to work more and/or harder to achieve those things.

But it's sure becoming a popular theory.

Also: I think what you're describing might be the broken window fallacy:
[http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-
fal...](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp)

------
dvdhnt
I don't think this is specific to Alaska - there's something similar going on
in Siberia and other places where melting permafrost has the potential to do
serious damage.

There are even books (and soon at least one movie) on how restoring wooly
mammoth populations can save us.

\- [http://www.npr.org/2017/07/05/534768716/woolly-breathes-
new-...](http://www.npr.org/2017/07/05/534768716/woolly-breathes-new-life-
into-a-scientific-saga)

\- [https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050308/woolly-ben-
mezri...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16050308/woolly-ben-mezrich-book-
interview-george-church-deextinction-genetics-synthetic-biology)

~~~
chrononaut
For those looking around these sources wondering how woolly mammoth
populations can save us, from The Verge article:

 _So these Russian scientists, the Zimovs, roped up a huge section of the
permafrost starting in the ‘80s and are repopulating it with these large
animals: reindeer, horses, bison. They’ve been able to lower the temperature
of the permafrost by as much as 15 degrees [Fahrenheit] by reintroducing large
herbivores. The mammoth project is all about this. If we can introduce a
mammoth herd to the tundra, we can maybe save the environment for another 100
years, because they’ll help put into place these very natural processes to
keep the environment colder._

------
cropsieboss
Arctic ice has 1400Gt of carbon locked up as methane. [1] This is equivalent
to 1400/10 = 140 years of human 2016 activity. [2]. Methane also has a
stronger effect than CO2. If ice starts to melt, we are doomed.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions#Contr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions#Contribution_to_climate_change)

[2]: [https://www.co2.earth/global-
co2-emissions](https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions)

~~~
seikilos
How long would that all take to melt? According to your source only 50 of the
1400Gt could be abruptly released.

~~~
tajen
I think they've tried to convert those 50Gt into palatable comparisons: It
equals to a 2 additional degrees increase of global warming, or reaching the
2100 temperature in 2080. But we're talking about methane – the original
article was about CO2.

------
vwcx
"The study, based on aircraft measurements of carbon dioxide and methane and
tower measurements from Barrow, Alaska, found that from 2012 through 2014, the
state emitted the equivalent of 220 million tons of carbon dioxide gas into
the atmosphere from biological sources (the figure excludes fossil fuel
burning and wildfires).

That’s an amount comparable to all the emissions from the U.S. commercial
sector in a single year."

------
trapperkeeper74
That's probably so however Siberia is contributing much more. The whole of
subarctic tundra is at risk for rapid melting and co2 and methane release as
trapped ancient organic material decays. There are also other major, imminent
issues: the uncertain liability of the ESAS clathrates, zero summer sea ice
(arctic ocean heating) and jetstream abnormalities (hence more variable
weather day-to-day).

Anyone whom wants actual facts ought to watch Paul Beckwith out of University
of Ottawa on YT for detailed updates and analysis on climate change.

[https://youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith](https://youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith)

~~~
basurihn
Or perhaps another more honest source, who is upfront about the statistical
uncertainties underlying all but the most basic climate science.

Hell if you want a good scaremongering, there are some old Van Impe videos
around somewhere.

------
crush-n-spread
The atmospheric carbon situation is not good, and we (as a species) need to
come up with actionable geo-engineering solutions. Here is one.

Rainwater hits mountains and dissolves silicate minerals into cations that
flow into rivers and then oceans. The oceans naturally uptake carbon from the
atmosphere by reacting atmospheric carbon with cations in the water that come
from those dissolved silicate minerals. This uptake de-acidifies the oceans
and produces food for ocean life; for us to collect all the carbon produced in
the USA last year, we would need to crush about 60km^3 of silicate rock (which
is in abundance) and spread it along coastlines.

To successful sequester enough carbon to save the ecosystem, this might one of
the best options we have. This paper [1] does a good job of explaining what
I've touched on here.

[1][http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/rog20004.pdf](http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/rog20004.pdf)

~~~
Fej
This is a very interesting proposal. Hopefully this will become part of the
"throw everything at the wall and see what sticks because we were out of time
yesterday" strategy.

------
artur_makly
And if you think that's bad ... you check out what's happening in Siberia :
[https://www.wired.com/2016/12/global-warming-beneath-
permafr...](https://www.wired.com/2016/12/global-warming-beneath-permafrost/)

------
EGreg
Can someone PLEASE tell me why there haven't been more efforts underway to
have commnities around the world plant more trees and engage in planned
reforestation?

This is as close as you can get to a globally available mechanism for pulling
carbon dioxide out of the air (and methane can burn leaving carbon dioxide).

I mean this very seriously. Richard Branson is looking to fund ways to pull
Carbon out if the atmosphere. China has developed a way to leave carbon in
rock. Meanwhile we have had a way all along - TREES! Those and algae in the
oceans.

The "answer" I often hear is that the carbon will eventually be released when
the trees burn in forest fires. Well, first of all, what matters is the
overall biomass of trees. And secondly even if it didn't, that buys us many
decades.

PS: How come this is being so heavily downvoted?

~~~
koube
Trees are not a carbon processing factory, they are a carbon battery. If they
die the carbon will be released again during decomposition. Once they are
planted they must be maintained into perpetuity, unless they are planted where
they will naturally survive. Maintaining these forests will probably involve
energy usage that releases more carbon.

We need method of fixation that is both permanent and does not have the
constraints that tree planting does.

~~~
EGreg
They don't have to be maintained into perpetuity. The trees covered a lot more
of the planet when left alone. It is HUMANS that reduced the biomass of trees
over the last few thousands of years. And especially last 100.

"Maintaining" the forests simply involves restraining humans from interfering.
Or even better, chop the trees down and replant, using the wood for
construction after fireproofing it!!

------
syncopate
Couldn't one try to at least limit the feedback loop by spreading sulfur over
the affected regions by plane? (Simulating a volcanic eruption that reflects
sunlight)

~~~
ancientworldnow
We will almost certainly be spraying sulfur dioxide (and dealing with the acid
rain) in the next few decades. It will be too little too late though.

------
pfarnsworth
What sort of effect does this increased CO2 have on the plant life in the
area? Do they benefit from the increased CO2 leading to more plants/trees,
etc?

~~~
ams6110
Yes, undoubtedly.

------
StevePerkins
Worth pointing out that this article is over 3 months old.

~~~
cmurf
There are more recent articles than this one. New York Times, CNBC are all
reporting it in the last 24 hours.

[http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/08/22/permafrost-thawing-
faster...](http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/08/22/permafrost-thawing-faster-
feeding-climate-change-study/)

And they're citing an April 2017 published paper:
[http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n5/full/nclimate32...](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n5/full/nclimate3262.html)

------
needcheapbw
Has the waterline changed:

[https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/AK/3_rid/waterfront_at...](https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/AK/3_rid/waterfront_att/globalrelevanceex_sort/62.034411,-146.189575,57.818429,-154.231567_rect/6_zm/0_mmm/)

~~~
mark-r
Sea levels are a lagging indicator of global warming.

~~~
needcheapbw
Citation? How long is the lag? Years? How long does it take to fill a bathtub?
If so much ice is really, actually melting in the world and has been for
years; no shoreline changes have occurred anywhere in the world, then that
must be some amazing lag.

~~~
mark-r
The ice that's melting today is floating ice in the Arctic and Antarctic,
because it's subject to warm ocean currents. Floating ice doesn't change sea
levels when it melts. The ice that matters is the glaciers in Greenland and
Antarctica. Glaciers weren't formed in a day, and they won't melt in a day
either.

~~~
needcheapbw
That is correct. Glaciers melt constantly, new snow forms as moisture
accumulates in higher elevations and condenses, falling as snow. The snow
becomes the beginning of the glacier. It's a cycle that repeats. It is
repeating right now, every year.

[https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/life-
glacier.html](https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/life-glacier.html)

[https://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm](https://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm)

[http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/11/Pio_XI_Glaci...](http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/11/Pio_XI_Glacier_Chile)

------
thriftwy
Launch solar shade!

@

Sea levels drop.

~~~
hyperbovine
a) We can't

b) What secondary / tertiary / ... / n-th order effects would that have? I'm
guessing you don't know.

~~~
gervase
This is a reference to a computer game, not a serious proposal:

[http://alphacentauri2.info/wiki/Council_Proposals](http://alphacentauri2.info/wiki/Council_Proposals)

------
cryoshon
and we can't even get people to agree that there's a problem.

and we have no leadership to guide our response.

and we can't winnow our way out of this alone.

what now?

~~~
nyxtom
Consider how lucky we are to even have spent any time at all to reach a point
in the cosmos to make this realization. Even if humanity manages to survive
past this problem, there are many more including the overconsumption of the
world's finite resources. Perhaps it is inevitable given a biological
imperative to be selfish. Our means of survival in future generations may be
determined by our ability to adapt to withering resources, reuse of existing
and exploring space for more. Consider the issue of water reuse; some amount
of research suggests that graphene filters when they come to fruition may help
with far more reuse and recycle of water. Other work such as the electric
transport systems, high speed hyperloops, and 3D print manufacturing combined
with a closed loop system may help bring down massive resource waste. There is
a lot of tech to be hopeful of but it won't be all positive. Many of it seems
to be adaptations to a world which is constantly at risk for extinction

------
memracom
Probably the asteroid Apophis, due to hit the Earth in 2029, will cause enough
cooling to prevent most clathrate from melting. If that works we have a nearby
supply of small asteroids that we can fire at the Earth to deepen the winter
effect. It works best if you hit a shallow coastal shelf area with lots of
limestone rock. Maybe we will sacrifice the Caribbean?

~~~
perilunar
If we are going to be re-directing asteroids, then put a couple of metallic
ones in a stable orbit and turn them into foil sunshades.

~~~
memracom
Tinfoil hats for the whole planet? I love it!!!

