Self-sustained melting of permafrost

[Jerome Marot]

From this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z

An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020.

The risk of points-of-no-return, which, once surpassed lock the world into new dynamics, have been discussed for decades. Recently, there have been warnings that some of these tipping points are coming closer and are too dangerous to be disregarded. In this paper we report that in the ESCIMO climate model the world is already past a point-of-no-return for global warming.

 

[Alex Johnson]

That's right, there are natural processes that we cannot influence. But with our activities, the work of factories, power plants, we strongly influence the balance in the world. Look at the winters. Where there used to be snow and frost, now it rains and slush in winter. This is not normal and it is not clear what kind of troubles it will turn out to be for us. I read the BBC article on the prognosis of viral infections. And she can be trusted. Everything is logical in the article: the temperature rises = the number of insects increases = the rate of spread of diseases increases. After all, animals, birds and insects carry thousands of infections, and we do not even know which of them can pose a threat to people.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I ask folk to read this again and add links with pictures.


Thanks!

 

[Pao Dolina]

Climate change started in the 1830s. Coincidentally when the world's population exceeded 1 billion persons.

Only way to get around this would be to reduce the world population.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Climate change started in the 1830s. Coincidentally when the world's population exceeded 1 billion persons.

Only way to get around this would be to reduce the world population.

What’s your plan?

Butvthe essence of the article is that it wouldn’t matter if you stopped all green house gases immediately as the process noe feeds itself no matter whatcwe do!

Asher

 

[Pao Dolina]

What’s your plan?

Butvthe essence of the article is that it wouldn’t matter if you stopped all green house gases immediately as the process noe feeds itself no matter whatcwe do!

Asher

I would follow Singapore's playbook of their 2-child policy until we stabilize at less than half our current world population.

Ideally bottom 80% income bracket households of each country will not have more than 1 kid.

Middle 19% income bracket households of each country will not have more than 2 kids that would be spaced out by more than 40 months

Top 1% income bracket households of each country will not have more than 3 kids that would be spaced out by more than 40 months.

All these household should finish schooling, work for 2 years and get married before having their 1st born.

The purpose of doing this is to make sure that the offspring are given sufficient household spend to prevent physical/mental stunting, healthcare and education that will teach them skills that are in high demand/pay.

 

[Asher Kelman]

But unless we actually remove methane, CO2,Greenhouse gases and heat from the atmosphere, the planet appears to be on a course of self-perpetuating rise on Co2, methane and water vapor, trapping more heat from the now less reflective planet as the ice melts!

Asher

 

[Pao Dolina]

Those things break down over time. What needs to be stopped is the gases being generated by human activity.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Those things break down over time. What needs to be stopped is the gases being generated by human activity.

Did you rest GR Nature article in the reference?

 

[Pao Dolina]

Asher the issue with the article is that it presents a "no win" scenario.

As such if that is the case then why even bother to correct climate change?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher the issue with the article is that it presents a "no win" scenario.

As such if that is the case then why even bother to correct climate change?

There are solutions that require “Elon Musk”-like new enterprise.

1. giant air scrubbing machines to convert methane, CO2, greenhouse gases and heat to endothermic polymers That can be our new building materials.

2. pain the roofs and giant land areas white with newly developed UV resistant paints to repair the decreased reflectivity of the planet.

I have written to the author about calculations as to extent of changes needed.

Asher

 

[Pao Dolina]

There are solutions that require “Elon Musk”-like new enterprise.

1. giant air scrubbing machines to convert methane, CO2, greenhouse gases and heat to endothermic polymers That can be our new building materials.

2. pain the roofs and giant land areas white with newly developed UV resistant paints to repair the decreased reflectivity of the planet.

I have written to the author about calculations as to extent of changes needed.

Asher

Who will pay for it though?

I live in a country with more than 100 million people most affected by natural disasters.

Of which 0.1% have a wealth of $1 million or more

Last 50 weeks ago we had a volcanic eruption

Last Christmas we had a earthquake 30km from where I live

Month before that we had a Cat 5 super typhoon barreling at me 30 km away.

Makes me think maybe I should move to Canada or something to get away from all this nonsense.

 

[Jerome Marot]

This thread lacks pictures, so here is 1 hours and 23 minutes of them. Just think how important for us is this planet, which we call home. Best wishes for 2021.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Polymerization of farm Methane to plastics gives a practical polymer at 1/3 of the cost of fossil carbon-based plastics!

It’s just a start!

Asher

 

[Pao Dolina]

Polymerization of farm Methane to plastics gives a practical polymer at 1/3 of the cost of fossil carbon-based plastics!

It’s just a start!

Asher

Poor cows... garden hoses will be grafted to their butts to collect gas.

Here's a type of seaweed that was discovered can reduce methane output of cows when it is fed to them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/11/27/climate-solutions-seaweed-methane/

Here's

A photo of that seaweed

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-a.../public/LO5RHTQTVQI6XISYMFFM6K4QNU.jpg&w=3000

[/URL]

 

[Asher Kelman]

Link doesn’t work!

 

[James Lemon]

From this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z

An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020.

The risk of points-of-no-return, which, once surpassed lock the world into new dynamics, have been discussed for decades. Recently, there have been warnings that some of these tipping points are coming closer and are too dangerous to be disregarded. In this paper we report that in the ESCIMO climate model the world is already past a point-of-no-return for global warming.

"Permafrost melting” is partly an oversimplification that ignores basic geophysical processes and partly sloppy science communication .

 

[Pao Dolina]

Link doesn’t work!

Better link https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffka...-less-gassyand-thats-good-for-climate-change/

 

[Jerome Marot]

"Permafrost melting” is partly an oversimplification that ignores basic geophysical processes and partly sloppy science communication .

Tell me when you get published in Nature, James.

 

[James Lemon]

Tell me when you get published in Nature, James.

Science woo.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Tell me when you get published in Nature, James.

Well I at least have one major article published in Nature and that changed how platinum anti cancer drugs were understood to bind to DNA. I get several articles a week even now, referencing that!

The Journal, “Nature” is accepted as a an almost unimpeachable standard for scientific excellence and almost everything stands the test of time.

So the article in Nature from Nature has to be taken very seriously.

We cannot do a Trumpian ignorant flop-off to any work that reaches through all the screening and studious peer review of a published Nature article.

The Bayesian odds of it being true, (than not) must be 70% at a deepest minimum based on publication in Nature alone!

Asher

 

[Alex Johnson]

Nature is the main thing to create, but it seems to me that nature also has disadvantages. Although it is possible that the disadvantages that can be named are just a natural selection mechanism. Only humanity itself launches this mechanism. I mean, the impact of industrial emissions, the quality of food, a lot of harmful products. We ourselves destroy our health and then we ourselves go against the laws of nature, trying to compensate for the damage caused to ourselves.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Alex,

Viewed from some point in the sky looking down, humanity is the disease planet earth life forms is suffering from!

Asher