Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

Posted by $ nickursis 3 years ago to Science
53 comments | Share | Flag

This seems to be a valid item that does need investigation, I object to the statement that the bacteria starting up exudes "climate changing gasses like carbon dioxide and methane" Propaganda mixed with science....yuck..
SOURCE URL: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/24/575220206/is-there-a-ticking-time-bomb-under-the-arctic


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 3 years ago
    NPR is always biased for socialism. Fraudulent rubbish.
    Ok, I read this statist propaganda. I was tempted to conclude it was propaganda simply because of the source and not read it. (Of course, it was. NPR never lets me down with their irrational spewing.)
    "The bacteria started converting the carbon that's in dead plants and animals into gases that cause climate change: carbon dioxide and methane."
    Lying looter statist horse rubbish. Unproven garbage.
    NPR is a complete waste of time. Shut 'em down. No more taxpayer funding.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years ago
      Not arguing the point, however, there is some validity in exploring what impact there may be to warming the permafrost. I just wish they would leave it at that and not inject the hyperbole they do, like all media. Climate change is just that, and no amount of mans effort will go one way or the other unless they do some really big things like solar sails for shields or something. It is arrogance to believe that "if we only stop farting, we can cool the earth" or some such.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 3 years ago
        It has always made sense to me that warming climates release CO2 -- which is why the Vostok ice core studies show a correlation between CO2 and temperature -- with temperature leading.

        Al Gore famously used this correlation leaving off the fact that it appeared to show that CO2 reacted to warming rather than the other way areound.

        AGW advocates explain this by saying that that the warming releases CO2 which then increases the warming -- except that describes a feedback loop and the system should destroy itself the first time it happens.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 3 years ago
          Another little piece of GW illogic. The system compensates and uses other inputs beyond a few gasses, like solar power, cloud density, volcanic action, even some forms of chemical breakdowns in high atmosphere from solar rays, all contributing one way or another. It is a super complex mechanism with constantly changing values.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 years ago
    The bigger issue is the amount of frozen methane gas in the ocean floors over quite extensive regions. The oil and gas industry has been researching how to mine this resource, but no answers as to how to get it to release controllably, and how to capture it without too much leakage. Methane is a serious greenhouse gas, and on occasion, volcanic activity has heated a fairly large amount, causing it to bubble to the surface. There are suspicions, hard to confirm, that several unexplained ship disappearances in calm weather may have been caused by methane bubbles that caused a loss of buoyancy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years ago
      Well proven theory experimentally, I have watched the experiment they did, and the physics works. It is just trying to show how a ship found such a spot in the Triangle at the right time. There were a few scientists trying to show that the release of frozen methane from the sea bottom far outweighs any human inputs in regards to damage to the atmosphere, but I guess since no one could figure out a good looting angle, they went with the cap and trade boondoggle.....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 3 years ago
    It all goes back to "original sin", somehow everything man does is evil, is against the will of God and must be punished. There are those that believe that if you really care about others you will kill yourself for the benefit of the group. Every observation in nature is used to support this "truth" because it isn't rational but needs to be accepted on faith. One of the best ways is to highjack the observation of a very complex phenomena and state, as fact, a conclusion based on an ideology.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 3 years ago
    Hmm...seems to me that something quite similar happened in Alaska around 400 years ago when it was warmer there than it was in the Deep South...they had a name for that time, I can't quite remember...
    Oh, I remember now...can you say: Grand Solar Minimum?
    With slightly warmer weather, and some much needed carbon...maybe we could grow crops in Alaska while the midwest and deep south freezes over?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 12 months ago
      I read an article once in the newspaper that Green-
      land got its name because it was once not so cold there.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 2 years, 12 months ago
        Yes, the Norse had several large colonies there that had to go because of the temperatures dropping. The Libertards want everything to be the same, or it is freak out time, being they are unable to adjust to anything, like uncomfortable truth, or warmer weather.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 years, 12 months ago
        Correct a mongo, (a saying I picked up in california), Likely during the same time the south pole was snow free also.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 11 months ago
          But not ice free, perhaps you mean less snowing. If ice free, there would be evidence for very large sea level rise during that time period.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 years, 11 months ago
            The south pole was Ice and Snow free at one point. there are ancient maps showing the continent...you can go to youtube or yahoo it.
            My guess is that we were in a much closer orbit to our sun. A 90K year cycle from almost circular to and elips...which is where we are now.

            Two other things to consider is the earths weight distribution, (weighted axis) or a more lopsided orbit bringing the earth to a much higher orbit relative to the sun. Our orbit is Not on a level plain and goes through many changes during our orbital cycle which I propose is a direct result of our sun and solar system traveling above then below the galactic plain.

            I read a recent article that explained mathematically there would be only a minor rise in sea level but certainly not the kind of rise al gorsky lies about.
            Besides, who says it "Wasn't" always ice and snow free...meaning without glaciers or surrounded by frozen sea ice during summer months.

            Science has to realize that the earth was not always the same as we witness today or even during our recorded history which is a geological short period of time.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 11 months ago
              Sorry I interpreted your "...likely at the same time." as indicating the medieval warm period.
              However, the oceans would rise more than two hundred feet if the antarctic 6.4 million cubic miles of ice above sea level were to melt.
              6.4x10^6 cubic miles = 6.4x10^6 sq miles one mile thick of above sea level ice.
              The oceans have an area of 139.7x10^6 sq miles.
              So (6.4x10^6 cubic miles) / (139.7x10^6 sq miles) =
              0.045812 of a mile.
              (5280 feet per mile) x (0.045812 mile) = 241.88736 feet or so but somewhat less due to the lesser volume of water due to the density difference between ice and water.
              How can a wobbling planet due to changing center of mass move out of the ecliptic plane? Even the other planets in the ecliptic plane cannot gravitationally move the Earth out of the plane. Pluto's orbit does not lie in the ecliptic plane due to being an object from the Kuiper belt and not formed from the original disk of matter around the Sun..
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 years, 11 months ago
                Well, Irshultis, visualize the sun traveling 433K miles an hour (I've heard other figures but will stick to this one), all the planets in tow and the sun dives below and then above the galactic plain.. the closer planets could not maintain a stable orbit, it would take a bit of catching up to re-establish that resonant/electromagnetic orbital distance. (this is just my guess as to how this occurs-but the fact is, it does occur. Right now the difference between winter and summer is about 4 million kilometers, 47/51...looking back thru the years you will see this figure change and this orbital change is a cycle of 90K years.
                Try this yourself with an elastic string (ping pong ball) on a ball with the string in hand start the ball orbiting your hand. Now move your hand forward and gradually up and down an imagined plain and you can watch the balls orbit change.

                As far as our weighted axis...do you not think the addition of the great lakes after the glacial melt or the gigantic Chinese reservoirs...maybe even some tectonic shifting just might cause a axis change?
                I have also read articles that have found evidence of ground water migration which would be the result and cause of our tilt...so to speak.

                The so called tilt is only in respect to some angular parameters in relation to the sun. I have yet to find that we Ever rotated on the so called geographical perfect north and south poles...even our geographically perfect equator is never in the same spot as we orbit the sun.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 11 months ago
                  For your ping-ball example, remember inertia
                  which keeps a body in motion when not being
                  forced. Use the old Einstein train thought experiment. On the train the moving ball on the string will not change orbit as the man moves with the train. Both the man and the ball have a constant a velocity due to inertia in the direction of the trains motion. The orbit in this case is due to the force applied to the string but does is not affected by the motion of the man in the direction of the train's constant velocity and the balls motion normal to the orbit in the train's direction. Your orbit changes due to a change in the direction of the force on the string.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 years, 11 months ago
                    Exactly my point, the orbit changes due to a change in direction.
                    Of course there are many unknown factors and forces involved in order to produce a model that would accurately represent our exact path and what is causing our orbital path to change but it's the only thing that makes a bit of sense to me.

                    The problem is we haven't been around long enough to observe and measure the entire cycle although we could probably make some pretty good guesses.
                    Just wish I had the where with all and time to build a model to demonstrate what might be happening.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 2 years, 11 months ago
                      I have seen a lot of people who have made their own theories about both the solar cycle, local star cycles and the galactic cycle, in detail and in general. The up and down past the Galactic plane seems pretty simple, and someone one said they postulated that the plane itself causes big issues because the gravitational pull from it is at a right angle to the movement at that period, whereas when you go above and below it is minimized because a lot of it is converted into angular momentum, causing it to oscillate in the first place.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 years, 11 months ago
                        I am thinking more about electromagnetic fields instead of gravity. We are too far away from everything for gravity to be a factor. The sun's resonance is what determines our place in the solar system so might the same effect have something to do with our placement and orbital path around the galaxy?
                        Even if I could build a physical model, it wouldn't explain all the forces involved but I could demonstrate why our orbit around the sun changes as we move up and down the galactic plain.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ 2 years, 11 months ago
                          I would think gravity is the prime energy source for motion and change of direction, are you getting this from The Thunderbolts Project?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 years, 11 months ago
                            Yes.
                            But understand this, gravity is just an attractive force, we can measure it but we don't know what it is exactly but electromagnetism, and resonant fields are attractive forces also and seem to be much stronger over vast distances also. So I expect our understanding of gravity to change and it's importance and it's role in the cosmos will likely change too.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ 2 years, 11 months ago
                              Ah. I am still waiting to see if they ever define and manipulate gravitons in my lifetime. Many sci fi authors have used them, Bill Baldwin in his "Helmsman series built a whole universe around the use of "graviton generators" to power starships, so they had to land and take off from water. I was amazed to find out they actually are a proven particle.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 2 years, 11 months ago
                  All of this adds up to an ever changing constant, complex machine that has inputs from so many sources, any one of which can tip the scales. Which takes us back to the premise, that current models cannot accurately reflect the future, because they are missing many of these inputs and science does not understand all of them anyways.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 2 years, 11 months ago
                Excellent argument. Great math. The issue also assumes though, that the available volume of storage is the same today as then, and we do not know if maybe there have been planetary uplifts that have changed the storage area for available water. Drop the seabed a few hundred feet here and there, and it could make a difference in relative height. Remember, there was once land bridges between England and France (The Dogger Bank), there are ruins under 100 feet of water off Okinawa, there was a land bridge across the Bering straight. Maybe lower ocean levels because of earth crustal movements, or less water (being tied up in ice), but if tied up in ice, then the land bridge across both England and the Berings would be horribly treacherous to cross, and there are ruins on the Dogger Bank that show villages and settlements, so it could not have been iced over. Same thing in the Black Sea, there are underwater villages. Until someone can make all that stuff mesh in a single setup, I can't buy the "well 50k years ago this or that happened" from the climate change crowd. I agree your math sounds viable, but are there other factors we do not have?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 11 months ago
                  I should have mentioned that that rise would be as though the present land were bounded by walls to keep the water stacked to that depth, but it would over flow covering the land and thus be somewhat lower sea level.
                  Remember that during the last ice age, the sea level was over 300 feet less than today.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 11 months ago
                    Being far below sea level for tens of thousands of years would make it possible for humans to build where water covers the land today. Plenty of time for building on the coastal shelfs. Humans were not stupid, just maybe a lack of long term data about the Earth's history. There is no physical knowledge without discovery.
                    Also, during the ice ages, there were large areas of uncovered tundra where the large animals grazed.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 3 years ago
    Well, CO2 (Carbonation in Sodas) is released as soda gets warm (Soda goes flat). We all know this, but forget it.

    Of course as the Oceans melt, or ice melts, trapped CO2 is released. So, High CO2 is CORRELATED with Warming, but may clearly not be causative.

    Especially if are earth was covered with a LOT of water. LOL
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 3 years ago
    OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS GOING TO END BY BLOWING ITS TOP.
    maybe the reason the tunnel they are walking through and looking at is warming because they took out all of the dirt. another government project giving incorrect information. would they say the same thing if they couldn't see into the mountain so they would be someplace else? what a joke!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 3 years ago
    If I was a lot younger I'd buy up a whole bunch of frozen property way up north somewhere. Just think of the potential real estate fortunes to be made when things really start to heat up. I've still got a small piece of land in southern California if anyone is interested in buying it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years ago
    Who is messing with our chocolate cake?
    The Eco-Freaks have been warning us about catastrophes for many years. I'll give them credit for ingenuity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years ago
      Well, one of the questions no one has addressed is how did all those damn mammoth bones, sabre cat bones, and the host of other items they find under deep layers get there? This was 20-30K years ago, obviously in lush vegitation, and then they end up 100 feet under ground? Someone fold the planet?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 12 months ago
        They were pretty dumb animals. Take the La Brea tar pits Which contains what appears to be endless amounts of ancient dinosaur bones.. You'd think that after several hundred years, even the dumbest critters would learn to avoid them. Ah well, "There's a limit to intelligence, but no limit to stupidity" --Red Skelton Of course Red was referring to humans , but the comment is pretty universal.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo