Thawing Permafrost May Be "Huge Factor" in Global Warming

Feb 14, 2013 Read more: Inter Press Service 35

Scientists have now learned that when the ancient carbon locked in the ice thaws and is exposed to sunlight, it turns into carbon dioxide 40 percent faster.

Read more
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#21 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
I hadn't seen such a large spike like the Greenland core here ~14 Kya. Interesting that it may ROUGHLY correspond to Meltwater Pulse 1-A, when sea level rose ~20 meters in less than 500 years, or perhaps 200 years. I saw a recent studay reporting evidence in Tahiti that it was associated with a sudden ice shelf collapse in Antarctica.
That would have been interesting - world-wide tsunamis, probably in the hundreds of meters tall when they approached shorelines, leaving sea level permanently ~20 meters higher - all in just a matter of hours or days.
What looks like a pulse at 14ka is really the start of the interglacial which was interupted by the Younger Dryas. You're correct that it corresponds with what is thought to be a meltwater pulse which shut down the gulf stream causing a return to glacial conditions for about 1500 years.

The same activity is seen in the antarctic but as with all ice core data is less prominent in the antarctic. What is interesting is that the antarctic leads the arctic, except in this case. This evidence is thought to indicate that the event that caused the Younger Dryas was indeed isolated to the NH and impacted global temps.

Some studies explore a exterestrial hit, comet is most often thought because of particulate matter found in the sediment of eastern canada. Which would have been a perfect spot for shutting down the gulf stream. That hypothesis is still under investigation.

Hadn't seen the antarctic ice shelf collaspe premise, you're right anything that big would have had major impacts.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#22 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, wrong & wrong. We are certainly warmer now, & shooting up very, very quickly. We are raising CO2 10,000 times faster than it rises with natural forcings. Will the ice melt 10,000 times faster?
Most would say the peak of our current interglacial was closer to 7 Kya, but 9 Kya may be close enough. Some give a range of 5-9 Kya.

The Antarctic icecap began forming ~34 Mya when CO2 got "down" to ~450 PPM. We are heading for that by 2050.
So again, what will our sea level be in 2050? 2100? 2200?
I haven't seen any proxy studies of temps that show today's temperatures equal to the temps of the majority of the holocene. If you have one to reference, I'd appreciate if you would post it.

No the study did not make any predictions about what would happen if other conditions existed. It only made statements about what was studied. Yes sea levels were higher in the eemian, if melted ice contributed it must (conjecture) have come from the antarctic, according to the study, it didn't come from greenland.

What will sea level be? If I get a guess in this, I'd say stable or maybe a little lower in the next three decades due to less or no thermal expansion due to lower solar activity.

We will see because the grand experiment we can't conduct in a test tube is currently taking place. We just experienced some of the highest solar activity throughout the entire holocene and now we are expecting some of the lowest values we have experienced in our records of solar activity.

We measured TSI during the high levels and now will get to measure it during low levels. The additional information we get from this change of climate will make it easier for us to understand what is happening and to make good decisions on what if anything we should do.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#23 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
What looks like a pulse at 14ka is really the start of the interglacial which was interupted by the Younger Dryas. You're correct that it corresponds with what is thought to be a meltwater pulse which shut down the gulf stream causing a return to glacial conditions for about 1500 years.
The same activity is seen in the antarctic but as with all ice core data is less prominent in the antarctic. What is interesting is that the antarctic leads the arctic, except in this case. This evidence is thought to indicate that the event that caused the Younger Dryas was indeed isolated to the NH and impacted global temps.
Some studies explore a exterestrial hit, comet is most often thought because of particulate matter found in the sediment of eastern canada. Which would have been a perfect spot for shutting down the gulf stream. That hypothesis is still under investigation.
Hadn't seen the antarctic ice shelf collaspe premise, you're right anything that big would have had major impacts.
In other places I've seen the Younger Dryas labeled "YD," which has prompted some dedicated amateur deniers to call it "Yucky Data."

I've seen other hypotheses that the eastern Canada comet impact might have caused the extinction of the Clovis people, not to mention those of the large mammals like mammoths & sabre tooth tigers. Supposedly if it hit the ice, the crater might have melted without leaving much of a trace today. It might even have been an airburst.

However, supposedly the DNA of the large mammals suggests they disappeared over a longer period of time, perhaps due to over-hunting by humans. Other humans replaced the Clovis people.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#24 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
In other places I've seen the Younger Dryas labeled "YD," which has prompted some dedicated amateur deniers to call it "Yucky Data."
I've seen other hypotheses that the eastern Canada comet impact might have caused the extinction of the Clovis people, not to mention those of the large mammals like mammoths & sabre tooth tigers. Supposedly if it hit the ice, the crater might have melted without leaving much of a trace today. It might even have been an airburst.
However, supposedly the DNA of the large mammals suggests they disappeared over a longer period of time, perhaps due to over-hunting by humans. Other humans replaced the Clovis people.
I've read the same theories about the Clovis people and the large mammals. What I have seen suggests that there were massive fires in the North American forests at the same time and the fires started the domino effect of shutting down the food chain in the area.

It's all very interesting but needs further study before we'll get a clear picture of what happened.

The Younger Dryas does look like a change caused by something other than natural variation.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#25 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the same theories about the Clovis people and the large mammals. What I have seen suggests that there were massive fires in the North American forests at the same time and the fires started the domino effect of shutting down the food chain in the area.
It's all very interesting but needs further study before we'll get a clear picture of what happened.
The Younger Dryas does look like a change caused by something other than natural variation.
It does seem like there could be either thick ice or trees, though, not both, in a given location. Perhaps the YD had something to do with a large chunk of the Laurentide ice sheet melting & breaking up to the east. The St Lawrence, Niagara Falls, etc, are all supposed to be young. Previously, they drained south into the Mississippi.

Yes, it all "deserves further study," like so many other things, LOL.
Leonard

Panama City Beach, FL

#26 Feb 17, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't post science fiction. I could do so if necessary, though. There are lots of good writers out there.
I post science, & will continue to do so.
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus ??

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#27 Feb 17, 2013
Leonard wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus ??
Ha, ha, ha.

No, I believe in the science. The basics of AGW/CC science have been prove beyond a reasonable doubt, though many details remain to be worked out.
PHD

Overton, TX

#28 Feb 18, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha, ha, ha.
No, I believe in the science. The basics of AGW/CC science have been prove beyond a reasonable doubt, though many details remain to be worked out.
So if its been proven beyond a reasonable doubt there shouldn't be any details remaining?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#29 Feb 18, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>So if its been proven beyond a reasonable doubt there shouldn't be any details remaining?
No, that is incorrect. The basics have been proven, but there are many details yet to be worked out.

We know there will be droughts, but where, when & how severe? We know sea level will rise, but how fast? Will it be linear over time? We know temperatures will rise, but how much? How fast?

Doubling of atmosphereic CO2 will raise temps 3-4.5 C, perhaps more. The latest information suggests it'll be closer to the upper than the lower end of that range.

Just because many details are yet to be worked out, that doesn't mean we don't have a grasp of the basics.
PHD

Overton, TX

#30 Feb 18, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is incorrect. The basics have been proven, but there are many details yet to be worked out.
We know there will be droughts, but where, when & how severe? We know sea level will rise, but how fast? Will it be linear over time? We know temperatures will rise, but how much? How fast?
Doubling of atmosphereic CO2 will raise temps 3-4.5 C, perhaps more. The latest information suggests it'll be closer to the upper than the lower end of that range.
Just because many details are yet to be worked out, that doesn't mean we don't have a grasp of the basics.
How so?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31 Feb 18, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>How so?
Have you ever tried to actually read some of the explanations of the science?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-c...

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Climatology.htm...

Give them a try.
PHD

Overton, TX

#32 Feb 18, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever tried to actually read some of the explanations of the science?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-c...
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Climatology.htm...
Give them a try.
Well I could take that as an insult. Yes I have and some would be considered science and some scientific science fiction. Do you know the difference?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#33 Feb 18, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Well I could take that as an insult. Yes I have and some would be considered science and some scientific science fiction. Do you know the difference?
I certainly know the difference between science & science fiction, being a fan of both. The sites I posted have science. You call almost all this science "scientific science fiction," so AFAICT, you have your own idiosyncratic definition. So you tell me. What do you mean when you say "scientific science fiction"?
PHD

Overton, TX

#34 Feb 19, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
I certainly know the difference between science & science fiction, being a fan of both. The sites I posted have science. You call almost all this science "scientific science fiction," so AFAICT, you have your own idiosyncratic definition. So you tell me. What do you mean when you say "scientific science fiction"?
I have ant here we go again. Science is fact, Scientific Science Fiction will state in my opinion, prediction, could be, should be, forecast, model, approximate and so on. I have many unusual features Sorry I was born that way not one of the pretty people you might be AFAICT.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#35 Feb 19, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>I have ant here we go again. Science is fact, Scientific Science Fiction will state in my opinion, prediction, could be, should be, forecast, model, approximate and so on. I have many unusual features Sorry I was born that way not one of the pretty people you might be AFAICT.
If you're going to say that science is only historical, can only apply to things that have already happened, then you're excluding one of the most powerful things about science: prediction. Science allows you to understand the world & make predictions about it, Neils Bohr & Yogi Berra notwithstanding (paraphrasing both: "predictions are difficult, especially when you're talking about the future").

AGW/CC theory doesn't allow precise predictions about the future, but it sure allows approximate predictions. They've been remarkably accurate & have improved with time.

That's not the same thing as science fiction.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Boulder Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colorado fetal homicide bill mired in familiar,... 8 hr Elise Gingerich 1
Don't Boulder Golden ! Fri Loyal Lab 2
Boulder Drivers Voted Rudest & Most Arrogant in... Apr 15 Bird Watcher 1
News Colorado lake overwhelmed with thousands goldfish Apr 12 Observer 7
Car on lookout mountain (Jul '06) Apr 1 Morgan 2
Boulder, CO homelessness blog Mar 31 Not a do-gooder 1
Why are Boulder people such A**%OLES ?? (Jul '10) Mar 23 Frack Boulder 59
More from around the web

Boulder People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]