Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pakistan: Flood Fatigue Closes Eyes to New Disaster
KARACHI - Men and women wading through waist-deep water with infants straddling their sides; a convoy of donkey carts laden with entire families’ possessions moving towards dry land; people being rescued by uniformed men in rubber boats; ailing elderly carried on rope cots; bird’s-eye views of vast tracts of land submerged under water.
Shaista, a three-year-old girl, displaced by floods, holds a drink of water as she takes refuge with her family in a camp for flood victims in the Badin district of Pakistan's Sindh province September 23, 2011. The latest floods, triggered by monsoon rains, have killed more than 230 people, destroyed or damaged 1.2 million houses and flooded 4.5 million acres (1.8 million hectares) since late last month, officials and Western aid groups say. More than 300,000 people have been moved to shelters. Some 800,000 families hit by last year's floods are still homeless. Aid groups have warned of a growing risk of fatal diseases. (REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro) The televised images of such enormous devastation in Pakistan may well have been reruns from last year, but they aren’t. Rather, the glaring pictures of helplessness, starvation, disease and death captured this past month mark the second straight year of floods wreaking havoc on 17 of the Sindh Province’s 23 districts, leaving 11 of them completely inundated.
As water levels remain stagnant throughout much of the province, which experts say is facing worse flooding than last year, official figures estimate that eight million people have been affected and 600,000 homes totally destroyed.
The death toll has already hit 400 since the floods began in August.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the United Nations food agency, claims the rains have destroyed 73 percent of the region’s crops and 67 percent of food stocks.
"I foresee growing food insecurity in Pakistan as there has been significant damage to cotton and sugarcane; vegetables and fodder have been destroyed and it will not be possible to cultivate wheat in November either," says Dr Bakshal Lashari, director of the Institute of Water Resources Engineering & Management at Mehran University in the Sindh’s Jamshoro district. "The rural economy of Sindh depends on agriculture and livestock and both have been severely affected," he told IPS.
According to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), over 94,000 heads of livestock have perished, with "many more at risk of dying if they don’t get fodder and are not vaccinated against disease," said Lashari.
In the days to come, he added, this significant loss of agricultural land and livestock will impact not only the lives of those directly affected by the floods, but the whole country.
Yet the disaster has failed to move the international community or the people of Pakistan to dig deep into their pockets. The response towards the victims has been, at best, half-hearted. The United Nations effort to raise 357 million dollars has resulted in the collection of just 19 million dollars.
One possible explanation for this apathy could be the dearth of news reporting from the flood-affected areas, leading people to believe that the floods aren’t as bad as last year’s, which submerged a fifth of the South Asian country and directly affected 21 million people.
"People are simply not aware how bad it is as the media is not highlighting it...floods don’t sell," said Faisal Kapadia, a young entrepreneur, talking to IPS. Now, he says the "trust factor" has decreased because the "mainstream media, instead of encouraging private and public philanthropic ventures, choose to focus on incidents of corruption and (mismanagement) of relief efforts in Pakistan, (even though) this takes place everywhere in the world."
Last week the private television channel DawnNews ran a four-hour telethon about the floods for two days, but Sophia Jamal, one of the programme’s hosts, said the whole exercise was not only "quite painful" but futile: "People called in to chat or ask what the government was doing. I had half a mind to ask them what they were doing for their part," she told IPS.
Beyond simple indifference to the plight of flood-affected victims, experts believe that the government’s mismanagement of the relief effort last year may have led some to turn their backs on the current crisis.
Speaking to IPS, Mubashir Akram, spokesperson for the UK-based charity Oxfam said experts developed an exhaustive plan for modern disaster risk reduction (DRR) steps after the 2010 floods, which the government failed to implement.
Among the nine priority areas identified by the NDMA were institutional and legal arrangements for disaster risk management (DRM), hazard and vulnerability assessment, setting up a multi-hazard early warning system, mainstreaming DRR into development, capacity development for post-disaster recovery, training, education and awareness.
"The measures would have required spending just 30 million dollars then and would have saved billions of dollars now," he said.
The NDMA has reported that the government still has 56.8 million dollars left from last year’s fund, which it failed to release when people needed it most. Former NDMA chairman Nadeem Ahmed said "bureaucratic hitches" led to the non-utilisation of the funds.
Naeem Sadiq, Karachi-based businessman was among the many urbanites who "saw the destruction and helplessness of inundated millions on such a large scale" for the very first time with his own eyes. Along with a few prominent philanthropists, he formed a group that conducted flood relief and rehabilitation work until the onset of the floods this year.
He too has observed a significant waning of enthusiasm or a "tragedy burnout". "Some level of desensitisation and some fatigue, which is natural, have crept in this time," Sadiq told IPS.
"Donor fatigue is a major issue," agreed Kapadia. "People are tired of one disaster after another hitting this land. The economic conditions are very bad so people are donating less this time than last year, simply because they have less."
But not everyone is feeling the dip in enthusiasm. Businessman Salim Tabani and his like-minded friends remain are working to provide immediate relief. In 2010 they distributed rations to 150,000 people over a period of three months. "In addition we finished building 1,000 wooden homes and 30 concrete ones for those whose homes were completely destroyed last year," he said.
This year the group has collected about 20 percent of what they had gathered in 2010, primarily from the same donors. He finds "the excitement is less this year. I guess people are now used to these natural crises."
- Posted in
97 Comments so far
Show AllWhat...no one responded to this yet.....?
Sometimes I criticize others for being in denial. It suddenly struck me that I too may have been avoiding this news item. It is just too sad and the little girl's photo is just so haunting and unconsciously I was pretending that I did not see this story. It is one of those things that make me feel so helpless. The best I do in such situations is to make a donation to a reputable aid agency, mainly to assuage my own guilt for not being able to do anything.
I hope one of these days - like, very, very soon, a critical mass of people join together to demand massive action to bring about drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and to implement major reforestation efforts. Climate change, deforestation and extreme inequality within the country are directly responsible for this tragedy in Pakistan.
I used to say from time to time that change does NOT have to happen gradually. There could be quantum leaps in people's consciousness and things can happen rapidly. We need something like that on the environmental front. It's all related.
I have to respond.......I just went through a flood..... I didn't loose my house... but many here did...to Tropical storm Lee ...or they got so much water, they cannot live there for a long time, till it dries out... What does it take for the powers that be to STOP THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
I believe I may be able to answer that excellent question ~theinitiate~.
The powers that be most likely will not be the powers that be very much longer and the use of fossil fuels by humans will cease (world wide), probably within five to ten years max.... Here is why.
Many very highly qualified to say so scientists, state they believe th Arctic will be (ice free) within the next three to four years.
Many highly qualified scientists who are qualified to say so state, when the Arctic is (ice free), a great deal of methane gas will be released into the atmosphere, because there are trillions of tons of methane which has been safely locked up in the frozen ice, or permafrost, beneath the Arctic Ocean floor and when that permafrost melts along with the upper ice, the methane (must be) freed to enter our atmosphere.
Scinetists who are highly qualified to say so, state if only 2% of the Arctic's methane releases into our atmosphere, it will be a catastrophic disaster, because it will cause (irreversable) global warming and the beginning of the end of life on Earth... That is if only 2% escaps... It is more than reasonable to figure if the Arctic is (ice free), far more than just 2% will enter our atmosphere.
If 2% is catastropic, what would 50 or 80 or 100% be? __ Catastrophic times 50? How muich worse is (catastrophic)?
Sooo, based upon the scientists research and conclusions,,, I believe we have about ten more years, maybe less. And then we won't be burning any more fossil fuels. We will be bye bye. ALL of us, including the (powers that be).
Now I'm sure some won't like to hear that news, but no one is bothering to read this article anyway, or very few it seems, and if any don't want to hear that news, they don't have to believe it, just assume those scientists are all wrong.
Is there anything we can do to prevent that catastrophic disaster?,,,,,, No,we waited too long and the party will be over withnin the next ten years... Like the guy in the movie,"Men In Black" said,,, "It sux".
Such defeatism is a rabid form of denial: there is nothing to be done, we're doomed. Isn't that what the oppressors want us to think? That there's no longer any point to fighting. That we might as well give up.
Contrary to the despicable, nihilistic sentiments of this defeatist, there are no climate authorities who regard the situation as hopeless. James Hansen has outlined a specific schedule of phasing out carbon and reforestation which would preserve this world for the future generations some fools have already written off. The way to make it happen is with a carbon fee, assessed at the wellhead or port of entry, with a 100% dividend returned to the people.
All we need is enough self-respect to make it so.
i wouldnt call it defeatism in particular. sounds more like realism to me. and until governments and people around the world start to address the situation 100 per cent, then the ``fools`` will surely be correct...................
It's defeatism and denialism, because you are denying your own personal responsibility to do something about it, just like those who deny the existence of any problem to work on. You engage in dangerous, slovenly foolishness. You are copping out, and laying the blame on "governments and people around the world."
There's nothing correct about grossly mischaracterizing what the science says. The science is clear that we could turn this around physically. If it turns out to be impossible politically, it's because of people like you.
You attack and insult anyone who has a different opinion than you do ~~Aleph Null~~.
~coco~ one of CDs old timers, is one of the nicest and most sensible, intelligent posters here at CD and does not deserve your obnoxious replies... At one time I thought you were one of CDs best commenters, but you have recently shown yourself to be an obnoxious bully, who thinks only you are correct.
You also display at times a problem of understanding what others write and cherry pick their comments and take words they have posted out of context in an attempt to prove your false points and you are also guilty of using"Strawman" tactics to distort the issues you are debating.
I dunno Wayne:
The new study, published in the journal Science, shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/15-2
Half of Canada's ancient ice shelves have disappeared in the last six years, researchers have said, with new data showing significant portions melted in the last year alone. (and it's down 90% since 1906 but more than 50% of that number was in the last 5 or 6 years - sounds like a spiral to me)
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-canadian-ice-shelves-halve-sixyears.html
I'm starting to believe that the tipping point was passed a few years ago. And regarding methane, a common statement is that methane has 20x times the thermal absorption properties over carbon dioxide. But that is over then ENTIRE 20 year lifespan and during the first couple of years after the initial release of the methane the thermal properties are in the order to 80x times greater than carbon dioxide.
If the world magically developed some 'perfect' fuel source that has 0 GHG emissions OPEC would fight this by simply dropping the cost of fossil fuels DRAMATICALLY to make the status quo significantly more appealing.
And so long as the gas for one's hummer drops to less than $2/gallon society can comfortably go back and reinsert it's head into the sand. (Body to follow shortly.)
I don't think it will be the end of human life. . . but it will definitely be the end of civilization, as we currently know it to be.
If you return here ~bones 288 good post... I agree except for on point... I'm afraid we don't have even ten more years before a catastrophic event has erupted... That opinion if based upon the things I have posted in following comments here.
I do not like it either. We have children and grandchrildren and none of the future generation deserves to accept what the latter generations have dont to the atmosphere
We could have had geothermal, solar, wind and tidal power ages ago. Fossil fuel and nucler powr is not necessary and it never was... That is especially true when we learned how very serious the addition of excess amounts of Co2 to the atmosphere by human activity is doing and what we were doing to our oceans by burning coal..
If sparse comments are a symptom of disaster fatigue, then that condition may be afflicting us here at CD. Have a look at South Pacific Islands Face Water Crisis After Six Months of Low Rainfall (9 comments). Poor Tuvalu and Pakistan, stricken in an era of when disasters have become routine.
Previous commenters immediately and sensibly associated the second year of unprecedented floods in Pakistan with climate change - but note that the professional news writer Zofeen Ebrahim of Inter Press Service fails to make this obvious connection. Were it not for the vital necessity of perpetuating denial at all costs, this article would at least mention the worldwide pattern of anomalous flooding nearly everywhere over the past two years. That's part of the context, part of the story. Zofeen Ebrahim should be ashamed of himself.
Because it is so seldom explained, many do not understand how climate change could be causing drought of Texan proportions at the same time as yearly 100-year floods. It has to do with the capacity of warmer air to hold more water vapor. A great new website called climatecommunication.org uses a "larger bucket" analogy which is clear and accurate:
The increased moisture in the atmosphere is driving the shift to heavier but less frequent rains — “when it rains, it pours.” While an atmosphere that holds more moisture has greater potential to produce heavier precipitation, precipitation events also become less frequent and shorter, as it takes longer to recharge the atmosphere with moisture. By analogy, a larger bucket holds and dumps more water, but takes longer to refill.
Precipitation, Floods and Drought
I do very sincerely wish Aleph Nul was correct, but Null is a denialist of facts on this subject...On another recent thread here, an article explaining how rapidly the Arctic ice is melting away, ~Null~ wrote that the he fully agreed the Arctic would be (ice free) within the next four years. And posted a link for an article to back up that opinion.
~Null~ also agreed that when the Arctic ice and permafrost melt away that a great deal of methane gas would release into the atmosphere... Null also posted some links for articles to back up that correct opinion... It is just plain common sense to realize, if the Arctic (is ice free) that most, if not all of the once frozen methane will escape into the Atmosphere.
~Null~ also agreed that if only 2% of the methane enters our atmosphere quickly, within a (3 to 5 years) time frame, we will have (runaway) global warming and there will be (nothing) AT ALL we will be able to do about it... NOTHING AT ALL!... If Null were to now say he didn't agree to those things, he posted links that say that is the case.
However; ~Aleph Null~ seems to be in some sort of personal La-La land,,, (besides being very rude and obnoxious to those he disagress with),,, for ~Null~ here believes Dr. James Hansen has the answer to this serious problem of the thawing Arctic ice and the release of (trillions of tons) of methane gas into our already heavily polluted atmosphere..
Dr. Hansen says all we have to do, is reduce our atmospheric Co2 level down from the current 390+ ppm, to 350 ppm, by the year 2100, by imposing a carbon tax and cut back a few % on our carbon footprint.... Well,,, when one thinks seriously and intelligently about that nonsense, one realizes that the year 2100 is 88 years away into the future and the Arcti will likely be (ice freee) in four more years.
Since the Arctic will very likely be (ice free) in just (four more years) an if only 2% of the methane then escapes and that will cause (runaway), totally out of control global wamring, it is impossible then to take Dr. Hansen's propoal seriously and Null, seriously... We do not have (88 years) to prevent that catastrophic disaster, we have three or four more years.
It is very obvious that Aleph Null is delusinal and in spite of sounding extremmely intelligent and well informed, he quite clearly has a serious flaw with his reasoning powers, besides being a rude person who does not know how to conduct a cvil and adult conversation with any he may disagree with on an issue.
If we can figure some method to stop the Arctic ice from melting away any further then we have a chance, a fairly good chance if we can do that... I personally do not know how to do that... Who does?
I have noted that ~Coco~ here can say more in a sentence than most can say in six paragraphs, She has always displayed a very high degree of common sense and honesty and she does not use words such as "dispicable" directed at those whom she may disagree with on an issue.
You lie about what I have said just like you lie about what the science says. Your lies serve no other purpose than to discourage people from useful action and discussion. I'm fed up with your lies.
BS ~~Aleph Null~~.. I have not lied about anything I wrote... You are lying about me... All any have to do is read the comments you posted on the thread ("Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf").
That article was posted here at CD on Sept 30....About the sixth one posted, you stated the Arctic would be ice free withnin three to four years and posted a reference to back that opinion up and so on. I did not tell any lies about what you have posted here
I have posted many times, since the year 2006 on websites that we must take immediate action to prevent the Arctic methane from releasing and you disagree, but you do agree the Arctic methane threat is the most serious issue we have and have posted links to confirm it. .
You want to only do as Dr. Hansen suggests and have stated that is your only solution,,, and that will not work in time and you know it. At least any intelligent ten year old child would know it.
I have never lied about any posted comments here at CD or anyplace else and I am sick of your obnoxous, unnecessary attacks and insults... You should be very glad that few are reading, or at least posting comments here on this thread to see what you are like. You should be ashamed at how you replied to ~coco~ for just one exampl of a bullying obnoxious person.
What has happened in Pakistan and many other areas of the world this past two years is the result of human caused global warming and the result of dramatic world wide climate changes. It has only just begun and the worst is yet to come.
We have managed to accomplish in less than 250 years of adding excess amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than what nature did over millions of years time with volcanic activity to cause prior dramatic global warming, severe climate changes and mass extintion of life.
We (must) reduce our carbon footprints and stop burning coal to power electrical power plants for starters and begin to reduce the atmospheric Co2 level to at least 350 ppm... Dr, Hansen is absolutly correct about that. The problem is that will take a great deal of time up to 88 years and we are rapidly running out of time. We must try to do something first to stop the Arctic methane from releasing from the Arctic Ocean as the subsea permafrost thaws.
How to do that is near to imposible, as the perennial ice now left is rotten and melts very rapidly during the Arctic's summer months with almost all day long sunbeams heating the Arctic's surface.
Artficial cloud cover is the only method I know of to stop the Arctic ice from melting any furteer and allow the Arctic's perennial ice to once again recover... That is termed "geo-engineering",,, a bad word with most scientists.
Well, we humans "geo-engineered" what we have done to our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and we damn sure better figure out a method to geo-engineer a way to undo what we have done and do it damn quick.
If any such action is ever taken, it has to be done scientifically and (safely), to prevent making a bad situation worse, although I don't know how (worse) it could possibly be, since we have less than five years left to prevent a uncontrollable castastrophic disaster which will end up destroying all life on this planet.
So we have choices,,, try to find a way to prevent the Arctic ice from melting away any further,,, or do nothing about it but wait and see... I personaly do not have the answers... Aleph Null says he does have the answer. His solution it to do as Dr. Hansen suggests and within 88 years we'll be okay.. I respectfully, as humanly possible to Null's suggestion,,, disagree.
Geo-engineering to alter the atmospheric weather conditions is scary to consider, and righffully so... Scientists better get their heads together and figure a (safe) method of geo-engineering to stop the Arctic methane from releasing or we are doomed and it won't be long... That's how it is and I don't want to hear about it either,,, but facts are facts and reality is reality. We cannot alter reality or physics... When the permafrost thaws the methane has to escape,,, that's reality.
Now we come to the point of your trolling: let's turn the fate of the Earth over to the same corporations which have already nearly extinguished life, so they can have a freer hand to finish the job with some geoengineering scheme.
Good job, troll.
Now there is a PERFECT example of what I meant when I wrote you don't comprehend what othere have written ~Aleph Null~.
I wrote,,,, "Geo-engineering is scary to think about, but scientists had better get their heads together and figue out a method of geoengineering a (safe) method of preventing the Arctic methane from releasing and that I thought that would be near impossible to do."... Howeve if it is not done we are all going to be royally screwed.
I also wrote,,, "We (must) reduce our carbon footprints and stop burning coal to power electrical power plants for starters and begin to reduce the atmospheric Co2 level to at least 350 ppm".
Now to the absurd (lying) obnoxious comment ~Null~ wrote about me being a "troll".... Who in Hell could I possibly be trolling for? __ That is the same attack lie your friend ~~Puffin Thrush~~ wrote about me as he/she disagreed with my opinions.
I firmly believe we must stop burning fossil fuels to generate electrical power and immediately develop clean energy on a massive scale,, other than nuclear power... So,,, whom am I trolling or shilling for Null?
However ~Aleph Null~; due to your posts concerning the Arctic ice and permafrost very rapidly melting away,,, with your (only) 88 year long solution we should consider to prevent a catastrophic disaster on Earth,,, it does strike me as you are a person who does not wish to see the Arctic ice stop thawing,,, so that the major oil companies can easily drill in the Arctic for oil.
There are many differen types of shills who post comments on webstes for the benefit of the oil companies... Smart closet shills are not all that uncommon.
Science either find a (safe) method to insure the Arctic ice stops melting off and allow it to recover, or we won't be here discussing the issue within ten more years,,, or less.
Trolling on behalf of geoengineering is the moral equivalent of advocating nuclear war: an invitation to a suicide pact. Our local geoengineering troll exhibits a standard methodology in nearly every environmental thread:
Alarmism. Grossly exaggerate the scale and immediacy of the genuine threat from various feedbacks.
Hopelessness. The intermediate Oh well, I guess we're just screwed stage of the argument.
Willful Ignorance. Dismiss the sane recommendations of the most knowledgeable climate scientists as delusional.
Our Only Hope! Wrap it up by insisting, contrary to all rational knowledge, the situation has become so urgent that only geoengineering can save us.
Geoengineering is defined by David Keith, one of its foremost proponents, as “an expedient solution that uses additional technology to counteract unwanted effects without eliminating their root cause.”
This mindset is impenetrable to me. How on God's Green Earth would it occur to one to go about solving any problem without eliminating its root cause? It is insanity, plain and simple. The lasting appeal of geoengineering is that it is western imperialist insanity which can be unilaterally imposed upon the weak by the powerful, as dangerous as nuclear stockpiles on hair trigger.
For anyone interested in a wide-ranging, responsible discussion of geoengineering hazards, The ETC Group's recent Geopiracy report is an awesome reference. Here's a revealing excerpt:
The “Lomborg manoeuver” – switching from opposing realworld action on climate change to supporting the most extreme possible action on climate change – is now becoming seemingly de rigueur among industrial apologists, former climate change skeptics and “deniers,” especially in the United
States. Besides Lane and Gingrich at AEI, political operators at the Cato Institute, the Thomas Jefferson Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Heartland Institute, the International
Policy Network and elsewhere are now increasingly professing their faith in the geoengineering gospel.
Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering
AEI, Cato, Hoover, CEI, Hudson, Heartland... there's no shortage of big-money institutions for our geoengineering troll to send his resume to. Or he could apply directly to the Koch brothers for his compensation.
Today's 'geo-engineering solution' is tomorrow's Pandora's Box. All a geo-engineering solution will provide is more time while the problem continues to get worse.
Does Dr.James Hansen have children? I find ppl with children are the most optimistic.
If you visit his website, you'll immediately see a picture of Hansen hugging his grandson and granddaughter. He called his recent book Storms Of My Grandchildren.
If parents have a bias toward optimism, grandparents probably have even more, I suppose. But keep in mind that a direction of work in science may be motivated by passions, but the scientific technique is designed to produce results which anyone can reproduce. The discipline is meant to eliminate personal biases from the finished product.
Hansen is not shy about his motivations in the title of his paper The Case For Young People And Nature. But he and his co-authors do an excellent job of exposing the exact basis of all their calculations and conclusions. Remarkably, for a paper of this significance, almost any reasonably patient person can follow Hansen's reasoning step by step, as he charts a way out of this mess we're in.
This is a very recent paper. It is breathtakingly presumptuous for anyone to imply that James Hansen, director of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, is unaware of recent developments.
Dr. Hansen's proposel is fair., we have to do at least that., I believe his proposals to reduce atmospyheric Co2 levels are much too conservative..... I certainly agree we must reduce our carbon output even more than Hansen advises and have said that for many years past.
Dr. Hansen's proposals (will not) prevent the rapidly melting Arctic ice and the release of trillions of tons of methane gas, and again,,, if (only 2%) of the trillions of tons escape into our atmosphere within the next (three to five years) there is absolutely nothing we can undertake that will help and that (is not) my opinion,,, it is the studied opinion from the scientists of an (article you posted) ~ Aleph Null~... And I agree wit those scientists and you berate for that.
I am not trolling or shilling for anybody... I have mentioned the Silver Lining project to artifically cloud the atmosphere and afters studying what is availabe to study about it, I dont believe it will be safe enough. I do not know af a way... I'm not the scientists.
My argument is,,, if we (do nothing) at all about the methane releasing from the Arctic, we are screwed,.. All of us, and so scientists must figure (a safe method) to prevent that from happening, we have no morre than three to four years to do something about it... We cannot wait 88 years for Hansen's proposes to lower atmospheric Co2 levels to 350 ppm. And that is your only solution ~Aleph Null~,, nothing eles is sensible to you. Apparently; you do not knoww the difference between 88 and 4.
Becaue that is my opinion,,, which is based entirely upon the words of very highhly qualifed scientists, you attack me, lie about me, call me a troll and a dispicable person, etc... You wish to hope that the world's governments will impliment Hansen's proposals, which you have to know will not prevent a soon to come castastrophic disaster.
It certainly does appear you do not wish for anything to be done to stop the Arctic ice from melting away..The only ones I know of other than yourself, who want the Arctic ice to disappear, are major oil companies and shipping firms so they can drill for oil and use the Northwest Passage and save money.... So whether you intend to be a shill for them or not, you are doing just that... Your attack against me make no sense.
However; if you are a paid shill for the oil or shipping companies, then your attacks against me do make a lot of sense.
Once again, geoengineering troll: there is no scientific basis for your belief that the loss of Arctic sea ice is likely to result in a catastrophic release of methane. Your trolling for the corporate geoengineering interests is based on that completely false premise. No scientist - not Shakova, not anybody - has published the opinion that a loss of Arctic sea ice will result in a methane catastrophe.
For instance, Joe Romm recently offered 450 ppm of atmospheric CO2 as the threshold of methane danger - well past the ice-free Arctic conditions he expects in just a few years. Hansen's proposal skirts beneath that level, which is why Hansen expects his proposal to work, despite your expert insights on the matter.
You're actively trolling for corporate geoengineering interests all the time. You cannot say that you are not trolling when you clearly are -several times in this very thread. Whether or not they are paying you, you persist in carrying their dangerous message all the same. The science does not matter to you, geoengineering hazards do not matter to you, nobody can get through to you. This is classic troll behavior.
If you get some kick out of saying I'm a shill for geoengineering knock yourself out ~Null~.
I never recall hearing the word "geoengineerng" until you posted it here at CD one day... If you wish to say that doing something to prevent the Arctic methane from releasing can only be done by "geoengineering" knock yourself out twice.
I don't have a clue of how it can be done, clouding the Arctic in the summer might work, it may not... I'd sure like to see it done if it can be done (safely) and scientifically.
I don't think there is anything we can do.now, we have gone too far and Dr. Hansen's proposals are fine if we had time, but won't help at all to prevent the Arctic's methane from releasing when or before the (Arctic is ice free) in the next three to four years.
You wrote,,, (No scientist - not Shakova, not anybody - has published the opinion that a loss of Arctic sea ice will result in a methane catastrophe").... ~~Null~~, How long does it take for you to think up such nonsense?
Nope, that is correct as far as I know... They didn't say that in your words ~Aleph Null~, they have said, if only a fraction of the Arctic methane releases it will be a catastrophe.. They didn't say when the Arctic is ice free,,,, it would not be necessary to say that, the result of that is clearly obvious. ... When the Arctic is (ice free), the methane will have released by a hell of a lot more than just a fraction.
Here is a comment from a very highly regarded swcientist from an article you posted recetly on another thread....(" If only 2% of the Arctic's methane is released quickly over the brief 5 to 10 year time period, the maximum temperature increase is higher by about a factor of three...That greater temperature response is more likely to produce (irreversible) consequences...Carbon cycle feedbacks on that sort of scale have the potential to make any (mitigation efforts) we might undertake completely irrelevant.").
Tha's only 2%.... When the Arctic is ice free in the next three to four years, figure on closer to 100% releasing.. The only reason the methane is still there is because it is locked up in ice... Any grade school kid could easily comprehend that if the ice and sub sea permafrost melts the methane will escape into the atmosphere.. If only 2% releassing will cause irreversable consequences, imagine what 20 %, 40%, 60%, 90% or 100% would do.
Drs.Shakova and Semiletov have both warned if only a fraction of the Arctic's
methane releases it will be a catastrophic disaster and the 400 scientists they lead do not disagree with them and most have doctorates in "earth science, biology, geology, ocean bio chemistry, etc... They are highly qualified and and have conducted hands on, on site research in the Arctic for many years,, not computer modeling.
Here is more,,,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=permafrost-meltdown-may-herald-clim-11-02-20
http://www.planetextinction.com/index.html
Nothing I have posted here is incorrect, I am quoting scientists who are very highly qualified,,, very highly.
As I say, there is no way of getting through to you, Dr Geoengineering Troll.
You cannot find a single scientist who agrees with your key assertion, your religious belief that a methane catastrophe will result from a lack of Arctic summer sea-ice. You can only say that it seems obvious to Dr Geoengineering Troll. I've explained the obvious: that what Shakova has said does not pertain to the question of whether a methane catastrophe will result from a lack of Arctic summer sea-ice, yet you endlessly repeat that which does not pertain, because there's no way of getting through to you.
You will even make yourself ridiculous by calling Hansen's proposal "nonsense." If Hansen and Romm can't get through to you, if the fact that not one scientist agrees with your key assertion matters nothing to you, then you're either a troll or incurably ignorant. Not worth wasting time on, except to point out to others how impervious you are to knowledge.
http://planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_permafrost.htm
Read that and suck it up ~~Aelph~~. deny it, scoff, insult, whatever turns you on.. You and I disagree on what will happen when the Arctic is (ice free), so insult me for that disagreement.. That is strictly (your) business.
BTW bud, nothing I see on my computer screen ever bothers me... I always consider the source.
Another btw,,, did you know that when someone posts references where people have to buy the article in order to read it, it is against the comment rules of CD? __ Or so I have been told.
Are you kidding? This is some website, staffed by people who make no claims to having scientific credentials, and even they do not support your wild claim: that a lack of Arctic sea ice will cause a methane catastrophe.
You could be using your energies to contribute constructively. But at a time when the fate of the world depends on disciplined analysis, you dedicate yourself to spreading ignorance, confusion, and defeatism. All in the service of the disastrous notion that there's some magic technology the corporations can unleash to restore the world they've destroyed. Goddam your ignorance.
Kidding? Not at all.. Are you really that obtuse Null? __ Well, yes you certainly are.
They are doing the same thing we do, (quoting highly qualified scientists) and offering excellent information about the issue of global warming.
Unlike you and I and others who post comments here, they give their real names, photos of themselves and a brief bio...They have quoted many very credeible scientists and those are the words I find to be credible. They are doing the same thing authors of articles we read here at CD do, they quote scientists and scientific information.
Their website is one of the very best informative websites available for any who wish to learn the truths about GW and the resulting world wide Climate change.
Did you bother to study the map of the areas of Earth where there is a great deal of methane and the words of the scientists who say we have only ten years because of the loss of Arctic ice and permafrost and the result of methane releasing? Of course you didn't, that is clearly obvious from your obtuse reply.
I see you missed the several different subject links they post and if you read all of the different subject matters on their very informative and educational website, you would find that the Arctic sea ice reduction is the (majoor reason) the Arctic methane is releasing.
I knew you would write what you just posted Aleph Null, doing (exactly) as the professional GW deniers do. .
The article you linked contains not one single reference. This does not resemble scientific writing, or even good science journalism. Also, the site is broken. Many of the hyperlinks lead to an "access denied" screen.
There are plenty of informative sites by folks who have scientific training. It's anyone's guess what you're trying to prove with your link to this relatively shabby, if well-intentioned, site. These people do not share your assumption that an ice free Arctic will lead to a methane catastrophe. There is zero support for geoengineering to be found here. They recommend Hansen's "nonsense": phaseout and reforestation.
Tell me about professionalism, Dr Geoengineering Troll. Are you here representing Bill Gates today, or is it the Heritage Foundation?
That link came from the original link I posted for you, which is exactly as I described. And no, once again, I shill for no one,,LOL
http://www.planetextinction.com/index.html
Hi ~bones~... Dr Hansen's proposal as I understand it, is very briefly to have a carbon tax and entice corporations to reduce carbon output.. He believes we can reduce the atmospheric Co2 level to 350 ppm by the year 2100 and it will begin to reduce by the year 2040.
Since many scientists now believe the Arctic will be (ice free) in three to four years, Dr.Hansen's proposal isn't going to help at all, even if he ever manages to have his plan adopted by all of the major countries in the world.
We do not have 88 years or even ten years... We have to do something now and I don't konw what will work... Attempting to communicate this very serious issue with Aleph Null is a total waste of time
I wish he had never replied to me here. He obviously does not understand what three to four more years means in respect to an ice free Arctic. .
I'm so glad we have you around to correct Hansen's errors, Dr Geoengineering Troll.
I'm sorry Aleph,, but I do not understand the meaning of that comment.
This is what you posted about Dr. Hansen's proposal at 8:15pm on October 1st. on the thread,,, Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf, dated Oct 1, 2011.
By Aelph Null...(" Hansen's aggressive CO2 phase-out scenario has levels decline to 350 ppm by 2100. Not within a decade or two, but beginning to decline in 2040, and his team thinks this is soon enough to "have a chance" of retaining a habitable planet.")...End quote
Didn't I write the same thing about Dr. Hansen's (proposal), if not, excuse me. I believe I did though..... Anyway ~Aelph~,,, 2100 isn't good enough, neither is 2040 for starters! __ Sorry... And ~Null~, keep it up with the insults,,, that's good., show yourslf up here.
There are many things you do not understand. The obvious meaning of my comment is that you regard your expertise as superior to that of the leading climatologist of our age. You are like some end-of-the-world prophet, a crackpot, a kook. Some higher power chose Dr Geoengineering Troll as the sole conduit for the divine message about how the world will end unless we build an Ark out of stratospheric sulfur dioxide. You are a profoundly sick individual.
I will continue to leverage your presence here as an example of intellectual sloppiness all conscientious people must be wary of, lest the world fall into such dangerous schemes as you ignorantly tout. The world needs negative examples as well as positive ones, and Dr Geoengineering Troll is the very archetype of a dangerous fool. A little knowledge makes a dangerous fool.
~~Aleph Null~ You know full well that I have not "touted" ANY schemes...I have stated scientists (must) figure a method to stop the Arctic ice from melting away
I had suggested on another thread that we could discuss the Silver Lining program Bill Gates partially funded, as from what I had read it sounded to be a safe method... After your replies to that proposal, I agreed that the Silver Lining idea would not be good
You are lying about me and of course that is your perogative... Why you are bothering to do so is a far different matter. You are obsessed with me and there has to be a reason and it is not becaue you fear I will entice anyone to do something that would be harmful.. You have a devious reason,,, or you would not have to write lies to make your point.
~~Aleph Null~~ has said that I am some end-of-the-world prophet, a crackpot, a kook... Null writes that because I believe we are very close to having a world wide catastrophic disaster, which may soon end most, if not all life on Earth.
However; here I will post just a few of some of the comments ~Aleph Null~ has previously posted here at CD, that essentially agree with my comments... He also is making derogatory remarks about me for saying the rapid reduction of the sea ice is our greatest concern, as that will insure most if not all of the Arctic’s frozen methane will release.
Very interesting comments here from ~Aleph Null~, who obviously is very wishy washy on the issue and is angry with me, because I had the audacity to very respectfully disagree with him about the proposals offered by Dr. James Hansen, that they were not the only thing that can and must be done to prevent a catastrophic disaster.
DR. Hansen's proposals will take too long to have any effect, a fact Aleph Null continues to ignore for some strange reason. Wonder why he does not want anything done to stop the Arctic ice from melting away? __Hmmm, very strange...That is the (exact same) desire of major oil corporations and shipping corporations. And Null says I'm a troll, or perhaps shilling for Bill Gates.
LMAOff. I have previously stated I didn't believe the prograam Bill Gates has partially funded will work... But ~Null~ ignores that and blathers on anyway.
The following comments were posted by ~Aleph Null~,,, First one is,,,(“The clearest, most potent pivot of the Earth's climate system into a new regime will be the loss of Arctic sea ice - a point which has not already been reached, but may be inevitable due to the Earth's current thermal momentum.”
“The anticipated methane burp - the outgassing of methane from thawing permafrost and marine clathrates - would represent a quantum leap for global warming, a threat to all parts of the globe.”
“Inevitably, the possibility of a catastrophic methane burp will not be definitively established until global atmospheric methane levels start climbing rapidly. But at that point it would be much too late to do anything about it, these secondary natural sources of greenhouse gases would dwarf human emissions, and the global climate disequilibrium would be worse by an order of magnitude.”
“Aleph Null with a reply to ~Richard Catz~,,, “If you say "we" have survived something like this before, that depends on what you mean by "we." Certainly some mammalian or pre-mammalian ancestor of humans survived a comparable level of heat, else we wouldn't be here.”
And the best one posted by ~Aleph Null~…. Which I fully agree with….Quote,,, “But the current rate of heating is completely unprecedented: ten times faster than the most rapid episode known. Evolutionary adaptation cannot possibly keep up, in the case of moderately long-lived organisms. This is what leads ecologists to worry that the extinction event humans are causing - the sixth extinction - may be the greatest ever.”) …End those few Aleph Null quotes.
Null wrote, "This is what leads ecologists to worry that the extinction event humans are causing - the sixth extinction - may be the greatest ever.”)..... Aleph Null is there referring to the next (mass extintion) , the SAME exact mass extintion I have written of on this thread, but Null says I'm a crackpot and a kook... Really, where does that leave Aleph Null?
From WayneWR.... I have quoted scientists, very highly qualified scientists and in addition. only a fool would ignore the fact that the Arctic methane is frozen in the permafrost and when the Arctic sea, fresh water ice, permafrost melt, the methane has to release... It is locked in the ice.
~Aleph Null~ is NOW saying things that are extremely (irrational) and are in total conflict with comments he has previously posted here at CD on the same issue... And there is a lot more, those were just a few of his prior comments...Something smells very bad here and it isn't me that is stinking up the area... It is the one who does (not want) to se the Arctic ice melting stopped.
We will not hold our breath in anxious antisipation, while ~Null~ figures an answer to those comments, in an attempt to discredit them, which can only be done with lies or distortions of the truth.. Those comments he posted are damning to his comments and the many insults he has directed at me here on this thread... Rave on bud, until we meet again.
The point is that there is no scientific basis to Dr Geoengineering Troll's assertion that a catastrophic methane release will result from a lack of sea-ice in the Arctic. This is the key assertion underlying the urgency he portrays in his dutiful trolling for corporate interests which seek a free hand to experiment on the only planet we have.
My interest in Dr Geoengineering Troll stems from the likelihood of imperial powers unilaterally imposing earth-destroying measures such as he regularly advocates. I anticipate a shock doctrine imposition of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere - presented as an emergency measure. Dr Geoengineering Troll is engaged, wittingly or unwittingly (it really doesn't matter which), in preparing the groundwork for this global assault.
The point is ~Aleph Null~~ ,,, it is unreasonable and downrigh stupid for anyone who has at least two brain cells wired to say once the Arctic is ice free in the next three to four years `that the trillions of tons of methane now safely locked in the Arctic's permafrost won''t release... Very likely most of it and 2% would be catastrophic as stated by many scientists, includng some of those you cite.
The comments you have posted here at CD on other threads about that very issue are in direct conflict with what you are postng now in arguments to what I have posted in regards to the most serious issue of the Arctic ice melting off within the next three to four years allowing massive amounts of methane to release.
Your comments about me being a troll, a shill for geothermal are not true,. laughable. I have never advocated geothermal as you are saying, only very recently have I posted comments on that subject,,, saying scientists must find a method to stop the Arctic from becoming ice free and do something to stop the ice and permafrost from disappearing.... I have said clouding the Arctic is the only method I know of to accompish that, but to even to think of doing that is scary.
I have said I am not a scientist and do not know how to stop the Arctic's ice and permafrost from continuing to melt, but if science determned clouding the Arctic was (safe), I would like to see it done... Something must be done very soon or we will have a catastrophic disaster within three to four years if nothing is done.
You do not want to do anything, except what Dr. Hansen suggests. That will not stop the Arctic from being ice feee in the next three to four years or even in the next 10 years.
You wrote this ~~Aleph Null~~,,, ("The clearest, most potent pivot of the Earth's climate system into a new regime will be the loss of Arctic sea ice")....Most potent pivot,,, really Aleph Null,, imagine that.
It's not as if no scientists have examined the issue: will the disappearance of Arctic sea ice mean the inception of a catastrophic methane release? Every scientist weighing this possibility has found it unlikely. Dr Geoengineering Troll earned his PhD because his expertise outranks that of all the the "downright stupid" authorities, including "delusional" James Hansen, director of NASA GISS.
There's no question that Dr Geoengineering Troll's comments (including the one above) strike a consistent theme of castigating those who advocate a carbon phaseout as wanting to "do nothing" - with the unambiguous implication that technological intervention must be necessary. This is clearly trolling. It well serves the corporate interests who want to immediately launch deadly experiments in the oceans and atmosphere of planet Earth. Every right-wing think tank in the country is benefited by the work of Dr Geoengineering Troll. If he's doing it for money, he's a prostitute. If he's doing it for free, he's just a whore. Either way, he doggedly persists in the work of a corporate troll.
Aleph Null wrote and incredibly at that ,,,, ("It's not as if no scientists have examined the issue: will the disappearance of Arctic sea ice mean the inception of a catastrophic methane release? Every scientist weighing this possibility has found it unlikely.")
That may be the most ignorant and most false comment about the Arctic methane threat Null has posted to date.
Most of the scientists have now agreed that the Arctic's methane must and (will) release as the ice and permafrost melts... The faster it melts, the sooner and more quickly the methane (will have to) release into the atmosphere... There are no sensible or reasonable arguments to deny those facts.
Most scientists also agree the Arctic will be (ice free) within the next three to four years and if only 2% of the methane, which is now safely locked in the frozen permafrost escapes into the atmosphere, it will cause a world wide catastrophic disaster....Those scientific studies and scientific conclusions Null here has agreed too just this past week.
I have not read any comments where (anyone) has written they are in disagreement with carbon phaseout. NONE... However; a carbon phaseout which will take up to 88 years and up to 30 years before any results are achieved, is not suffecient to overcome the (fact), that the Arctic will most likey be ice free within three to four years. At that time, most of the trillions of tons of once frozen methane (will) have released into the atmospher,,, and much more than just 2%.
Anyone who cannot comprehend that easy to realize (fact) is stupid, or is being obtuse, or has an agenda of wanting to see the Arctic become ice free . Who would possibly ever want to see that disaster happen? __ Oh, the oil and shipping corporation barons,,,, and their lying hired shills,,, some of whom may write pro-oil baron comments here at CD.
From dispicable to a kook, etc, etc, ect, to a prostitute or a whore, Null says of me.. He is getting funnier and more angry and outrageous by the hour,...The comments Aleph Null has previoulsly written on the Arctic ice and methane threat he cannot erase...They are all here for anyone who gives a damn about what we two write can check it out and easily read and see that Null is 100% wrong.
"Most scientists" agree with everything Dr Geoengineering Troll says, of course. No need to cite the words or name of a single one, it should be obvious. Everyone should just take the word of the distinguished Dr Geoengineering Troll that David Archer, Joe Romm, and James Hansen are sorely mistaken.
There's a great horde of scientists who foresee a methane catastrophe in just a few years. You can trust Dr Geoengineering Troll on that one, despite the fact that none of them have published this opinion. Dr Geoengineering Troll knows the secret thoughts of "most scientists" before their opinions are even submitted to journals, through telepathic communication, no doubt.
There are degrees of urgency. Are we in a nearly hopeless situation where the urgency demands desperate gambles on measures likely to cause more harm than good, or a situation where the urgency is grave, but such that a serious program of carbon phaseouts and reforestation, starting now, should be sufficient to preserve our planet? Who is more qualified to answer that question: James Hansen, or Dr Geoengineering Troll?
Most right-wing think tanks agree with Dr Geoengineering Troll that the time has come to magnify the harm we've already wreaked with programs to deliberately and directly pollute the oceans and atmosphere. There are a few scientists pursuing the geoengineering agenda like our troll here. But even those scientists (e.g. Paul Crutzen, Ken Caldeira, David Keith) would be embarrassed to exaggerate the methane threat as shamelessly as Dr Geoengineering Troll, who works hard for the money.
Did you miss the links which have already been posted that prove if only a fraction of the Arctic's methane releases, 2%, it will cause a world wide catastrophic disaster Aleph Null and did you forget what you had once posted on that subject? Here are acouple more for your reading pleasure.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/03/04/205600/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-
http://www.earthzine.org/2011/02/23/scientists-report-on-earth%E2%80%99s-fever-and-thawing-permafrost-in-the-too-near-future/
Again: when methane is frozen in permafrost,, it will stay in the permafrost,,when the permafrost melts,, the methane escapes into the atmopsphere. Not difficult for most intelligent people to understand.
I've already quoted back to you Romm's assessment, from the article you link here, that the danger zone is around 450 ppm. This is the first time you've shared the earthzine link, which says the following:
Schaefer tells IPS we’re 15- 20 years from a “starting point,” when the Arctic permafrost begins to thaw, releasing carbon dioxide and methane from long-frozen plant material and triggering a feedback that will amplify current warming rates.
This is substantially in agreement with Romm and Hansen, and substantially in disagreement with your alarmist 5-year projection. If you take a 15-year projection and reduce it to 5, that's called exaggerating. I'm convinced that your motive in the consistent exaggerations and lies you tell is to push your geoengineering agenda, to serve your corporate masters.
Again you do not comprehend what is written and you cherry pick sentences from articles to satisfy your flawed agenda... And because you do not comprehend what is written is why your agenda is flawed.
450 ppm atmospheric Co2 level was (assumed) to be the "danger zone" BEFORE things began to happen ten times faster than any scientists thought could possibly ever happen... The 450 ppm danger zone was when the Arctic ice would begin to reduce rapidly... Well guess what Null,,,the Arctic will be ice free within the next three to four years and the atmospheric Co2 level hasn't reached 400 ppm yet....Obviously the years ago 450 ppm (assumption) was wrong.
No scientists had computed the rise of methane levels in the atmosphere and there is where all of their climate models are incorrect... Read the entire article bud and stop cherry picking paragraphs and you may wise up and realize you are 100%wrong... A paragraph from the article... ("This is sobering information. And Schaefer says the predictions are conservative, in that the model used only measured carbon dioxide, (and not methane)...The team in Boulder is working on estimating methane emissions as the next phase of its study.
For other example Null ; did you read and comprehend these paragraphs from artices you have read?___ ("The researchers, led by Natalia Shakhova of the University of Alaska, along with Swedish and Russian colleagues, found that the amount of methane seeping into the atmosphere from below the Arctic Ocean is comparable to previous emissions estimates for all the world's oceans... ....The Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the planet, and scientists fear that methane emissions could rise even more dramatically in a feedback loop: As the atmosphere warms, the permafrost that has locked in methane gas in wetlands and beneath continental shelves melts, releasing more methane, which then warms the planet more.")
And this one from that article,,,__("More than half the world's methane results from human activities. It wafts from natural gas wells, from garbage dumps, from cattle manure and from rice farming. California and other jurisdictions are struggling to bring man-made methane sources under control, but (*only a dramatic reduction*) in overall greenhouse gases would be likely to reduce the feedback loop").... Dramatic reductions Null, not what Dr. Hansessn has propposed.
And here is a comment YOU posted last week. ~Aleph Null~,,, ("Impact From The Deep: Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?").. Well yes, it could Null. So read the (entire) article and attempt to comprehend what it says.
The 450 ppm level is a quotation from Dr Romm in an article you yourself linked about Shakova's results. The ten-times faster rate of forcing is a current result, a comparison of the past few decades with the PETM rate - which Hansen, Archer, and Romm have long been aware of. The Impact From The Deep conjecture is interesting, but it has little to do with the matter at hand: is a methane catastrophe imminent?
This post of yours is symptomatic of incurable chronic confusion. Clearly you are not equipped to intelligently interpret scientific results.
Take a look at a Scientific American story linked from the informative earthzine article you found:
A new study from researchers at the U.S.'s National Snow and Ice Data Center suggests a permafrost thaw and subsequent microbial chowdown could add at least 126 gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere over the next 200 years. That's about half as much as humans have already added through burning fossil fuels over the last 200 years.
That is certainly a grave threat to the health of the world. But it accurately describes a gradual release "over the next 200 years." This may be an "abrupt burp" by geologic standards, but it's not the kind of immediate emergency which is outside the range of what Hansen considers in his recommendation.
Not that it's possible to make any headway against the unshakeable convictions of Dr Geoengineering Troll. Again and again scientific opinions (even from the authorities you yourself have referenced) make no impression on you. You persist in insisting that Hansen's carbon phaseout scenario is insufficient and that some fictional safe form of geoengineering is our only hope, no matter what the professional climatologists say. Nobody is as thick-headed as you pretend to be - this is what convinces me that you're either insane, a troll, or an insane troll. I don't see any other explanation.
That "new" study you quote Null, is identical to a comment in a link I posted, and was written a long time ago, when scientists (had not) computed the rapid release of methane added to the greenhouse mix.... Their compute rmodels were horribly flawed and so were their (time frames).
As you have previously written ~Aleph Null~ and I fully agree,,,,, (things are now happening ten times faster than was predicted)... We have (three to four) years NUll, (not) a hundred years, or 200 years,,, three to four years and you don't understand that fact.
You are hopelessly confused. This is further information linked from the interesting earthzine article you posted about melting permafrost, as I said it was. The information is relatively recent, reporting on an NSIDC permafrost study earlier this year (the same as the earthzine article, of course).
Further evidence that no facts can possibly penetrate your ignorant notions.
Because of current major flooding in Thailand, Bancock may have to be evacuated... This is the harvest season in that area of the world and it is not very likely any will want to import rice or veggies from Japan. .
We're not far from an era of very destructive sea level rise. In the next phase, when the Greenland and West Antarctic glaciers really get moving, the warming of polar oceans is expected to be slowed down by the melting of icebergs calving off of the great ice sheets.
This cooling effect from melting icebergs will not be very good news for humanity, because the equator-to-poles heat difference will greatly magnify, resulting in storms of unprecedented fury. Nevertheless, this effect is a negative (cooling) feedback with respect to polar waters, and one of the factors which leads methodical scientists such as Archer and Hansen to conclude that the risk of near-term methane destabilization is negligible - that is, if we can keep atmospheric CO2 from peaking above 450 ppm and get back to 350 by the end of the century.
This is well within reach, but it would mean no tarsands or oil-shale development, no Arctic oil exploration, and a cessation of deep-water oil exploration. The inaccessible oil reserves which remain have to stay in the ground. We simply have to stop burning oil (specifically, cutting back 6% per year). We do not need to deliberately pollute our oceans and atmosphere, as the geoengineers recommend.
Aleph Null wrote,,,,,("We simply have to stop burning oil (specifically, cutting back 6% per year). We do not need to deliberately pollute our oceans and atmosphere,").
Unfortunantly it is not that simple... The Arctic will be ice free in the next three to four years at the current atmospheric Co2 level of near 393 ppm... Cutting back
Co2 emissions by (only 6%) will not even begin to reduce the Atmoshperic Co2 level for at least the next 27 years, according to Dr. Hansen... We do not have 27 years, or even ten more years.
There is the (key) to all of my and Aleph Null's arguments here... When the Arctic is ice free, far more than just 2% of the methane in the once frozen permasfrost will have released and that will insure that (tipping point) of no return, no 'do-overs" will have been reached... When that happens, there will be nothing anyone on Earth will be able to do to prevent the next mass extintion of life on Earth.
Scientists must find a SAFE method to do far more than Dr. Hansen has proposed.. Obviously any geoengineering plans proposed (*so far*) have been found to not be safe, and likely none ever will be found... If some way cannot be found however to prevent the Arctic methane from releasing by 2%,within three to five years, there will be nothing that can be done.. With an ice free Arctic, far more than 2% of the Arctic's methane will release into our atmosphere....That's how it is and the oil and shipping corporate barons will just love to see just Dr.Hansens proposals are the ONLY thing that is ever done, or if nothing is done.