
Permafrost is thawing in the Arctic so fast scientists lost their equipment - jonbaer
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/permafrost-melting-1.5119767
======
gxx
Thawing permafrost, faster even than climate models predicted, could release
so much carbon that feasible reductions in human carbon output will never be
enough. [1]

A similar worry is methane hydrates. [2]

It seems that the only remaining hopes are rapid progress on carbon
sequestration on a vast scale, or risky geoengineering.

[1] [https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-24/thawing-permafrost-
co...](https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-24/thawing-permafrost-could-have-
catastrophic-consequences-scientists-warn) [2]
[https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/energy/methane-
hydrate...](https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/energy/methane-hydrates/)

~~~
kbutler
"the idea of a ‘methane time bomb’ coming from warming sediments and
permafrost is one thing we don't have to worry about in connection with global
warming,"

"The researchers believe that soil and marine bacteria that feed on frozen
fossil methane as it melts may explain its limited release, by preventing the
methane from ever reaching the atmosphere."

[https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/natural-methane-time-bomb-
unli...](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/natural-methane-time-bomb-unlikely-
wreak-climate-havoc)

~~~
justin66
I think someone yesterday made a comment here about the value or otherwise of
university press releases. That quote is pretty cringey when you think about
the effect it will have on the average layperson's understanding of the
problem.

The abstract at _Nature_
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23316](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23316)

A longer explainer at _Nature_
[https://www.nature.com/articles/548403a](https://www.nature.com/articles/548403a)

~~~
kbutler
Nothing in the abstract or longer explainer contradicts those quotes, whether
you consider them "cringey" or not.

"The authors show that the 14C methane signature is relatively constant
through this abrupt methane rise. They use a mass-balance calculation to show
that this could not have happened if the rise was caused by emissions from
geological sources, including hydrates"

"Natural geological methane emissions are expected to have been higher during
the past than in modern times12, and so the authors' estimate of emissions
12,000 years ago can be taken as an upper limit for today's climate system."

The closest is the caveat that modern warming may go warmer, and thus further
historical analysis and modeling is needed.

~~~
justin66
If you cannot see what I mean about how that quote was potentially deceptive
because of its lack of context, I don't know what to say to you. (but I'm not
one of those who downvoted you)

~~~
kbutler
Here's the conclusion from the paper itself:

The differences between deglacial and modern warming preclude us from
unequivocally ruling out the possibility of large-scale natural methane
releases to the atmosphere from old carbon reservoirs in the future. Our
results do, however, suggest that such releases are unlikely. This is
consistent with recent atmospheric observations, which suggest that renewed
growth of atmospheric CH4 since 2006 is not driven by emissions from the
Arctic29, where the most vulnerable old carbon reservoirs are located today.
Instead, our results support the hypothesis that any future increases in
natural CH4 emissions to the atmosphere will be driven by contemporaneous
sources such as wetlands.

[https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/nature23316](https://sci-
hub.se/10.1038/nature23316)

Another piece of context is that the "don't have to worry" quote was from
"Scripps Oceanography geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus, who has been involved
with this research project since 2000 and leads the study of ice core records
at Scripps." He's in no way a global warming skeptic, but rather an advocate
of decarbonization by 2050 to reduce anthropogenic warming, yet he says the
sudden arctic methane release is something we don't have to worry about.

There is always more context. Basically anything can be "potentially
deceptive", but that does not mean that it is either deceptive or inaccurate.
This appears to be a case where the university press release did a pretty good
job of remaining true to the paper.

It sounds like you are uncomfortable with the conclusion, rather than the
summary of that conclusion.

~~~
justin66
> Basically anything can be "potentially deceptive"

Come on, stop being disingenuous.

> but that does not mean that it is either deceptive or inaccurate.

The quote you posted bereft of greater context (Which you've now tried to
provide. Well done!) could deceive a number of people. It's both potentially
deceptive and, in those instances where it deceives someone, deceptive. The
linguistic implications alone are... tremendously boring, to be honest.

> It sounds like you are uncomfortable with the conclusion, rather than the
> summary of that conclusion.

How utterly bizarre that you think so.

~~~
kbutler
I'm really confused.

The face-value perception of the quotes I posted ("'methane time bomb’...is
one thing we don't have to worry about" with the link for context) is the
actual, correct meaning of the quote and conclusion from the climate
scientists.

With the face value matching the deeper conclusion, where is the deception?

------
mhandley
I'm a little confused on this issue. How did all that carbon end up in the
permafrost soils in the first place? Presumably because the climate was
warmer, and vegetation grew and locked up carbon there. So now the climate
there is warming, won't vegetation growth take off again? I'm not denying
there's the _potential_ for lots of CO2 and methane to be released, but also
there's the potential for more CO2 to be locked up too. At what point does the
process switch over from releasing greenhouse gasses to vegetation removing
them again?

~~~
DennisP
The planet goes through natural carbon cycles. For example, natural orbital
variations cause a little initial heating, then feedback effects like
permafrost melt kick in, taking the planet several degrees further.

Then, over millions of years, the carbon gets absorbed again. Rock weathering
removes CO2, and layer after layer of plant material gets sequestered in the
ground.

The warming events cause mass extinctions. Hardly anything lives at mid-
latitudes, and crocodiles swim at the poles.

There's a _lot_ of geological evidence for all this, and it's the reason
people are so worried. If negative feedbacks were quick then we'd see a stable
climate in the geological record. We see the opposite. It doesn't take much of
an initial shove to tip things into catastrophe, and millions of years to get
back to a climate like our own.

~~~
Balgair
PBS's _Eons_ Youtube Channel has great videos on this topic. Really, all their
videos are amazing and very binge-able. Four that may be most relevant are:

The Last Time the Globe Warmed:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4)

When the Earth Was Purple: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIA-
k_bBcL0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIA-k_bBcL0)

That Time it Rained for Two Million Years:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1LdMWlNYS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1LdMWlNYS4)

From the Cambrian Explosion to the Great Dying:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDQa0okkpf0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDQa0okkpf0)

The few things that we learn from paleontology is the Earth is _Dynamic_ and
that any one creature's life is _fragile_.

------
perfunctory
"Instead of a few centimetres of thaw a year, several metres of soil can
destabilize within days. Landscapes collapse into sinkholes. Hillsides slide
away to expose deep permafrost that would otherwise have remained insulated."

------
netsharc
As Feynman said, nature cannot be fooled. A rise of 3 degrees between say 19 C
to 22 C may not feel that bad for us humans, but a rise of 3 degrees between
-2 C to 1 C passes through the point where water changes from solid to
liquid...

~~~
adrianN
Wet-bulb temperatures exceeding 35°C are deadly to humans. Already with the
current +1 degree warming we see some heat waves reaching close to those
temperatures. So a few degrees more in humid climates can actually feel very
bad to humans too.

~~~
whenchamenia
Having lived in the south where the tempurature can be that high for days at a
time, nobody was dropping dead.

~~~
inscionent
Nobody? There were 108 heat related deaths in the US in 2018.

[https://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml](https://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml)

A 25 day US heat wave killed 1,000 in 1980.

[https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19800719&id=...](https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19800719&id=dz1PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lAIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6301,7793&hl=en)

Heat is dangerous especially to those in sensitive groups and to say otherwise
is dishonest.

~~~
kbutler
During 2006–2010, 10,649 deaths of U.S. residents were attributed to weather-
related causes of death (Table 2). Exposure to excessive natural heat, heat
stroke, sun stroke, or all were cited as either the underlying cause or a
contributing cause of death for 3,332 (31%) of these deaths, and exposure to
excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both was cited for 6,660 (63%)

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf)

And most global warming mitigates cold extremes rather than increasing hot
extremes (polar amplification, increased night-time temperatures, etc.).

------
adrianN
I'm continuously surprised how we're not in full-on panic mode because of
climate change.

~~~
fsloth
We're fully dependent on hydrocarbons and no one has any idea how to replace
those in any foreseeable future.

[https://www.ft.com/content/73650984-135a-11e9-a168-d45595ad0...](https://www.ft.com/content/73650984-135a-11e9-a168-d45595ad076d)

"...renewables (including biofuels, waste and hydro) are responsible for
almost the same share of energy today (14 per cent) as supplied in 1971 "

We can shave of percentages by stopping eating meat and so on but fossil fuels
are still the major culprit in carbon emissions.

From economical point of view it's catastrophe today (just stopping using
fossil fuels cold turkey will destroy the economic structure of our
civilization) versus catastrophe tomorrow.

~~~
adrianN
The first official warning by an expert panel to the US President was 1965. We
did pretty much nothing since then to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel. We
could have for example switched all electricity generation to nuclear with
1965 technology and changed building standards to require proper insulation
and electric or district heating. That would have bought a lot of time that we
don't have now. We could also have instituted a carbon tax and slowly (over
the course of the last fifty years or so!) pinned it to the cost of extracting
carbon from the atmosphere.

~~~
ahje
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. We're here now, we can't change the past, and blaming
previous generations is a waste of time when we need to act now. Most of us
know what to do. We just need to start doing it.

~~~
adrianN
What do we need to do? I don't see how we can reduce carbon emissions by 18%
per year for the next ten years. Right now we don't even get the second
derivative right, emission rates are still on the rise. It doesn't really look
like our politicians worldwide will start an effort comparable to ramping up
the WW2 war industry to decarbonize the economy in the next decade. On the
contrary, conservative climate denialists are on the rise.

[https://mobile.twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1070717050430070...](https://mobile.twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1070717050430070787)

~~~
ahje
What we can do is to skip unnecessary travel, use public transport whenever we
can, stop buying fairly useless consumer products for our own leisure, and the
most important ones: realise that reducing our collective carbon footprint
will result in considerable reductions of one's individual standard of living.

We, as individual consumers, need to reduce the carbon emissions ourselves as
much as possible no matter what the politicians say. Deniers are going to be a
problem until shit hits the fan for real, and waiting until everyone is
convinced will simply be a waste of time.

So, in other words, focus less on what others do, more on what you do, and
make sure to prepare as much as you can for whatever the future holds. Not
saying everyone should become a prepper (although it's a fun hobby!), but the
fact that people blindly believe that the future is a straight line is
scarier, regardless of where they believe that line is pointing.

~~~
mattmanser
Spitting in an empty swimming pool to try and fill it?

It's a governmental problem, not an individual one, only way it's going to
change is if you start campaigning and voting differently.

~~~
freeflight
That's like a landslide were each pebble of dirt doesn't consider itself
responsible for what's happening, on a bigger scale, even tho all the pebbles
keep doing the same thing leading to bigger scale consequences in the first
place.

Many a mickle makes a muckle, this applies to pretty much everything.

If everybody keeps acting like their individual contributions are completely
meaningless, then nobody will change anything about their own ways and thus
large scale change will remain a pipe-dream.

~~~
mattmanser
The vast majority of carbon emissions is out of individual control.

The longer you keep parroting this corporate propaganda, the more fucked we
are. This needs strong government intervention, now.

Preferably paid for with massive, backdated windfall taxes on every company
and shareholder that ever materially benefited from environmentally
destructive companies.

Obviously not going to happen, but let's not pretend me or you are responsible
for the industrial levels of pollution, and the last few decades of climate
change denier lobbying, when those companies full well knew the damage they
were doing.

~~~
freeflight
> but let's not pretend me or you are responsible for the industrial levels of
> pollution

Let's instead pretend our chosen lifestyle of abundance and wastefulness
doesn't factor into any of this at all?

Who do you think these companies are selling their products to? Thus financing
their operations in the first place? Externalizing the blame for this solely
on the industry, like consumers have zero responsibility or impact, might be
convenient but imho it only serves to shift the blame from one party to the
other and vice versa, so that ultimately nobody feels responsible and thus
nobody starts acting.

To tackle this will require efforts on both ends. Because the industry will
simply react by "There's demand for it, so we do it", while consumers go "The
industry is doing it, somebody needs to force them to change, but don't you
dare to inconvenience ME!".

Literally, nothing stops us from doing both: Being responsible consumers and
properly regulating the industry.

------
gdubs
The appendix of last year’s IPCC report contained a list of potential
solutions. Repairing damaged soil was high on the list. Trees are an obvious
thing; we should be planting large numbers of trees. Large scale reforestation
as well as everywhere else we can fit them. But soil holds the potential to
sequester an enormous amount of carbon.

Degraded soil lacks microbial life. If usually ends up that way from
conventional farming and poor land management. Repairing it would mean moving
away from conventional monocrop farming towards rotational grazing [and other
alternative practices]. A good reason to eat mostly local food from small
organic farms, and if you eat beef to at least make sure it’s grass fed,
pasture raised. This also cuts down on the carbon cost of transporting food
halfway across the world in trucks and planes. (Those transportation costs are
not factored into the EPAs estimates for how much agriculture contribute to
climate change. Neither are the emissions generated in producing all the
chemicals used in agriculture. They also don’t factor in how much carbon would
be sequestered in all the acreage currently used for conventional farming, if
it were to be replaced with practices like Silvopasture and agroforestry, or
healthy pastures.)

The issue of climate change is a systemic one. A centralized food production
system that relies on fossil fuels for both inputs and outputs (petrochemicals
as well as transportation) has resulted in a society of sprawl. You don’t have
to have a farm down the block anymore, and you can drive 30 miles to work.
It’s all connected.

One idea is we can move back to a model of small local farms, keeping
communities more tightly knitted and less sprawled. That would limit food
choices more towards what’s in season, or has a long shelf life. Arguably,
while limited by seasonality, the food would taste better since these days we
engineer for transportability over taste. Another option would be to keep with
a centralized model but rapidly decarbonize it; electric trains, agroforestry,
etc.

I personally think the decentralized model has the potential to be very
beautiful. But we should be pragmatic and take whatever the best elements are
of either path and just start making changes.

------
lurquer
Why doesn't the article provide any temperature data showing, one would think,
some unusual increase? 'Climate Change' doesn't make things melt: heat does.

------
Mindphreaker
This gives me a chilling reminder of The Swarm - A Novel Of The Deep by Frank
Schätzing. Interesting novel with quite some scientific background.

~~~
mirimir
Interesting. He concretizes unforeseen consequences of screwing with the
global ecosystem. I'm not sure that it's useful, though. Reality is
frightening enough.

I've lived through a few situations where I did something stupid, and
surprising stuff happened. Too quickly to do anything about, but slowly enough
to appreciate how bad it was going to be. My first faceplant on a snowboard,
for example. So anyway, regarding global climate change, the last 30 years has
been like that. And surprises just keep coming.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Well reality certainly will be if it turns out permafrost thawing is a tipping
point we're blithely passing.

------
RikNieu
Well this is terrifying.

------
La-ang
It's a clusterf __ _

