NEWS: Global Warming Dramatically Evident in Siberia

An area of Siberia larger than France and Germany combined, having been frozen for more than 10,000 years, is melting rapidly. The landscape is mostly composed of peat bogs and, as it melts, huge quantities of methane gasses are released. Previously, the perma-frost kept the gas trapped, but now that soaring temperatures are causing wide-spread melting of the frost, the gas is free to escape into the aptmosphere, which causes further warming, which releases more gas, and so on. Scientists warn that this massive increase in greehouse gasses being introduced into the system will speed up global warming, and set in motion a chain of events that will end in global disaster.



Well, some of us knew it was coming, and others will probably still be in denial when the water in their veins evaporates. We're really in some deep muck here, no pun intended. The billions of tons of methane trapped in ice and perma-frost all over the globe is rapidly being released. Every year it gets warmer, and more gas is introduced into the aptmosphere. This in turn causes the next year to be appreciably warmer, and so on.

This is a tipping point, we're crossing the threshold into some very bad times. I hope people are prepared for how bad it can get. Part of the justification for not dealing with global warming last decade was that it was hundreds of years away. Well, it's in our face now, so what are we going to do about it?

I would actually like to know why so many people are so vehemantly vocal against the global warming theory. It seems evidence is mounting up to support the scientific claims of global warming, yet there are so many opposed to the theory? Why is this? Why is it so hard to believe that we have polluted this planet enough for it to undergo rapid changes? Do these opponents of the theory think that humans do not make a difference to the planet?

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Mayet]

Originally posted by Mayet
I would actually like to know why so many people are so vehemantly vocal against the global warming theory. It seems evidence is mounting up to support the scientific claims of global warming, yet there are so many opposed to the theory? Why is this? Why is it so hard to believe that we have polluted this planet enough for it to undergo rapid changes? Do these opponants of the theory think that humans do not make a difference to the planet?

There are three camps when it comes to this issue. There are people that believe that only human activities are causing global warming. There are the skeptics who believe that it is only a natural cycle and that human activity has done nothing to worsen global warming, and there is a third group who believes that there is a natural cycle, which we are currently going through, but that human activities also worsen and accelerate the results of global warming.

I happen to belong to the third group. Also, even though there is global warming, the end result would be the cooling of portions of the world when the North Atlantic conveyor belt slows down even more, and possibly stops.

This current brings warm waters to the northern parts of the globe and allows for warm summers and mild winters. Global warming melts the glaciers from the poles at unprecedented levels and releases a lot of fresh, desalinated water, which in turn breaks the balance needed for the gulf stream to bring warm waters, and summer, to the northern latitudes.

The skeptics seem to not want to believe this because there are people in the believers camp that use this problem to try to stop all forms of human activities, which would be catastrophic not only to the economy of the world, but because the lives of many, if not most people in the world depend on the use of oil and it's derivatives.



[edit on 11-8-2005 by Muaddib]

I agree with membership in group number three.

Past climatic shift evidence does support that the planet swings back and forth on fairly regular cycles, this being no exception. We just happen to be giving it a little extra push.

Some of us will adapt and survive. The rest will not and will perish. Such is life. Meanwhile, our world will do what it does best, and restore balance upon itself.

At our current level of technology, I expect all attempts to halt this trend to fail with catastrophic consequences. But once again, balance will eventually be restored. With or without the human race.

>Note on the North Atlantic Conveyor: it does little to affect the North American continent. The current brings cold water down from the arctic to the NA East Coast. In the event of a long term Conveyor shutdown, Europe takes the dive as the current carries warm water up from the tropics. I suspect this is what began near the end of the 13th century with Europe suffering a "mini ice age."


[edit on 11-8-2005 by apc]

I honestly think the people that try to debunk and discredit the idea of Global Warming are doing so because if it were real then they would be partially responsible, and the vast majority of the world shuns responsiblity of such things and would rather live their lives believeing they can drive that 05 Escalade that gets 7 miles to the gallon, pour out oil into the street, and enjoy 65 degree AC in their house in the winter via a coal-burning power plant without repercussions. I wonder what such people say in the face of actual data such as this, although I can already tell you what those members of ATS on the anti-warming wagon will do, they will look for something to twist in the story, and once that isint found they will move to the traditional smearing of character of whomever reporrted or outed the information.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by alternateheaven]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Mayet
I would actually like to know why so many people are so vehemantly vocal against the global warming theory. It seems evidence is mounting up to support the scientific claims of global warming, yet there are so many opposed to the theory? Why is this? Why is it so hard to believe that we have polluted this planet enough for it to undergo rapid changes? Do these opponants of the theory think that humans do not make a difference to the planet?

There are three camps when it comes to this issue. There are people that believe that only human activities are causing global warming. There are the skeptics who believe that it is only a natural cycle and that human activity has done nothing to worsen global warming, and there is a third group who believes that there is a natural cycle, which we are currently going through, but that human activities also worsen and accelerate the results of global warming.

I happen to belong to the third group. Also, even though there is global warming, the end result would be the cooling of portions of the world when the North Atlantic conveyor belt slows down even more, and possibly stops.

This current brings warm waters to the northern parts of the globe and allows for warm summers and mild winters. Global warming melts the glaciers from the poles at unprecedented levels and releases a lot of fresh, desalinated water, which in turn breaks the balance needed for the gulf stream to bring warm waters, and summer, to the northern latitudes.

The skeptics seem to not want to believe this because there are people in the believers camp that use this problem to try to stop all forms of human activities, which would be catastrophic not only to the economy of the world, but because the lives of many, if not most people in the world depend on the use of oil and it's derivatives.



[edit on 11-8-2005 by Muaddib]

There are so many factors too, I believe that you may have forgotten
with respect to Global Warming. The North Atlantic OScillation is only one of those factors.
Let's not forget something about that conveyor..even were it to shut down completely, the Atlantics ability
to bring warm air to parts of the northern hemisphere would be driven by wind alone. To cause
catastrophic events would take probably more than a sole shutdown of that oscillation.
I think things some scientists and "global warming experts" arent taking too seriously
into account are the effects underwater volcanism is having on the atmoshpere.
While the levels of GHG's (green house gases) are at an all time high historically recorded,
ice core records show that they have been at substantially higher levels in times past
where there was no human influence on atmospheric conditions.
I believe humans are responsible for a part (albeit smaller part than most think) of global warming,
however, there have been in excess of 4000 undersea volcanic eruptions this year alone.
That kind of power is more likely to be warming the seas at an accelerated rate than a CO2
from human only influence theory. Also, scientists to this day arent 100% positive
as to the solar cycle's influence on the global barometer as well as solar flares.
I think we may be seeing a series of global conditions coming into play that our history has never before seen.
This coupled with our seemingly irresponsible outpouring of GHG's into the atmosphere
will more than likely end pretty tragically. But like someone posted on here
the atmosphere will stabilize in its own time without our influence.

here's a link to some nice global temp info

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

we're certainly getting warmer overall but, if you look at the past few years, the data shows increases in some areas, temp drops in other areas.


for example, 2003 was a hotter than normal year for the west coast of the US but it was colder than normal for the east coast. Overall, the average temp of the globe is going up at a faster rate than in the past and this is the alarming thing. We should be concerned but the problem is, if it is part of a cycle (which I believe), we've got little control over it other than cutting back on the consumption of products that impact the atmosphere.

Originally posted by apc

Some of us will adapt and survive. The rest will not and will perish. Such is life. Meanwhile, our world will do what it does best, and restore balance upon itself.


[edit on 11-8-2005 by apc]

I agree with arc wholeheartedly on this. Life is a lottery, you cannot dwell on death. You may walk out of your house today and get hit by a car, have a heart attack, get blown up by terrorists, or die from abrupt climate changes... Oh well, what can you do? Well you can blame the people driving '05 Escalades that get 7 miles to the gallon, which all combined probably contributes to no more than .05% of global warming, or you can blame countries like Malaysia, whose uncontrolled burning fires are polluting the atmosphere, or you can blame cow farts, which also contribute to global warming, or you can blame a thousand other people or things, but in the end just live your life and be happy, because in the end we all die anyway.

Please, the article you posted doesn't even explain how the events in Siberia are caused by man. How can this not be anything other than coming out of an ice age? Maybe you never think of that.

Here is better article:

Calculations by Smith and his colleagues show that, over the long term, Siberian peatlands currently have absorbed more greenhouse gasses through plant growth and storage than they have released through decomposition. Thus, the peatlands currently absorb more carbon dioxide than they release.

news.nationalgeographic.com...


This at least hints at better conclusion that man is behind the so called atrocities. But still is hard to tell what is the cause.

But as stated in the article, there are some nearly 70bn tonnes of methane within these bogs. Cha-Ching! See how climate change plays out?



[edit on 11-8-2005 by Frosty]

I happen to believe there are natural cycles and humans do little to effect these cycles.

First, the link above from Crakeur and NOAA states "Annual temperatures were above average across most land areas... The only widespread areas of negative anomalies were across western coastal areas of Australia, central Canada and north-central Siberia where temperatures were between 1 and 2°C (1.8-3.6°F) cooler than average."

So what is it? Are things melting and temperatures are going up or are temperatures going down??? There is still too much conflicting data to believe anything.

Second, why are all these tests on Siberia and the Arctic being performed in the summer months? Of course I would expect them to find signs of things melting. Just like the Ozone Hole in the Antarctic is only reported on after it's summer months, when the sun has been hitting it nonstop for months and destroying the ozone.

Third, the article was written in a poor manner in hopes of getting this type of paranoid response. Although they talk about the size of the Western Siberia being 11,000 square miles, it is only a 1 kilometer edge that has melted (about 2500 feet). Quoting from the original article, "The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across." ... "He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years."

Please note we have no idea where in Siberia this 1 kilometer melting problem is. Therefore it is hard to determine what the summer temperature was there to see what is happening. Although they talk about the permafrost, there are many parts of Siberia that are above freezing temperatures during the summer months.

In past history, we talked about glaciers and glaciers "moving" and what effect this might have on us. I notice now that it is no longer glaciers but melting ice and global warming. Are these not one and the same or am I missing something here???

I'm sure very few here are going to agree with what I have just said. I will now put on my flame retardant suit and sit back and enjoy.

Shuttle commander sees wide environmental damage
www.financialexpress.com...

Commander Eileen Collins said astronauts on shuttle Discovery had seen widespread environmental destruction on Earth and warned on Thursday that greater care was needed to protect natural resources.

I'm sure its connected to global warming...I would like to see what they specifically saw!



[edit on 11-8-2005 by XPhiles]

The ice is still releasing methane whether or not the permafrost was permafrost.

I remember reading somewhere that even if we stopped all of the things we do to pollute the Earth tomorrow, that it's already too late and nothing will change. I really do think that whatever is around the corner, be it impending doom or not, we're past the point of no return. I can't see much being done with current technology to fix this problem. I only hope that maybe we can develope some kind of advanced technologies to clean up the mess we've caused on Earth.

That being said, this article should come as good news to those in the Gulags of Siberia. Now they can take "freezing temperatures" off their list of punishments, and perform their slave labor in a more enjoyable climate!

The Wisconsin or Wisconsinian was the last major advance of (A glacier that spreads out from a central mass of ice) continental glaciers in (A continent (the third largest) in the western hemisphere connected to South America by the Isthmus of Panama) North America. This (The process of covering the earth with glaciers or masses of ice) glaciation is made of three glacial maximums (commonly called (Any period of time during which glaciers covered a large part of the earth's surface) ice ages) separated by (Click link for more info and facts about interglacial) interglacial periods (such as the one we are living in). These ice ages are called (from oldest to youngest); Tahoe, Tenaya and Tioga. The Tahoe reached its maximum extent perhaps about 70,000 years ago while little is known about the Tenaya. The Tioga was the least severe and last of the Wisconsinan group and reached its greatest advance 20,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years before present (it started 30,000 years ago).

Article

The warming of the earth has been an ongoing process for a long time. It is hard to tell what is going to happen in the future due to global warming. I am not sure how much humans have contributed to global warming but do know that we humans did not stop the last ice age in North America.

Here we go again. Yet more evidence and yet more denials. Several years ago the sceptics denied that warming was even happening now they state its "a natural cycle". The danger of the "natural cycle" belief is that everything can be blamed on that, irrespective of how bad and thus nothing is due to human behaviour and thus there is nothing we can do to change it.

As soon as people start stating that "temperatures are up here and down there so it can't really be warming" I shake my head. What is disturbing is that the simplistic ignorance of those statements is exactly what the "prefer to do nothing" politicians want to hear. Am I going to explain the above stated anomaly here, no, instead I suggest people actually read the evidence. Not soundbites, not newspaper clippings, not sceptics websites (which conveniently "miss-place" information) but instead the full blown studies. It takes time and patience to do this because there is reams and reams of it. Also open your eyes and ears to the number of scientists and money (or lack of) behind the human global warming evidence compared to the sceptical scientists. There was quite a few vocal skeptics in the past who are now remarkably quiet.......I wonder why !

As I have said many times in the past, I do not think we can do anything to stop this. What we need to do is prepare and have plans for the relocating of large amounts of people from coastal areas, because those will be the areas most affected by the climate change.

Hey, at least we wont have another ice age for awhile

Am I going to explain the above stated anomaly here, no, instead I suggest people actually read the evidence.

Problem is, there is no real evidence implicating human activities as the cause for our present climatic shifting. All the studies activists love to shove in our faces are biased and misleading, swamped with redefinitions and changes of the criteria and factors. Kinda like the studies that show obesity in the US has increased 10fold or whatever the number is. People haven't reeeaally gotten that much fatter, we've just redefined what it is to be obese. The studies don't account for recalculations such as this.

When it comes to the environment and the human impact on it, we really have to take into account just how weak we humans are compared to how strong our planet is. Have we increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Yes. Was the planet already beginning a warming trend prior to the industrial revolution? Yes. Is there a high probability that our introduction of various forms of nonnaturally occuring compounds to air accelerated this process? Yes.

The planet has been warming up ever since the last major Ice Age. The Ozone Hole has always been there (little ones pop up all over the place all the time, but the activists don't mention those because they are clearly naturally occurring).

The one thing we are without a doubt having an impact on is the particulate content of the atmosphere. The gasses are of far less concern than the solid matter we spew into the air. This directly effects everyone, and is a serious health factor. But if anything, this is helping to cool the planet by blocking solar radiation.

In the end our world will follow the pattern it has always followed, drifting from warm trends to cold. There's really not a whole lot we can do but adapt or die.

This event has unthinkable ramifications.

But... I just want to add what an amazing job our members are doing on ATSNN. This story is just now becomming an item in other news outlets... and it was on ATSNN two days ago!

Great work.

Data gathered from weather balloons and satellites over the last 15 years – some of which had bolstered the arguments of sceptics – has now been found to have been faulty, with a correct reading of the data revealing unequivocally that the planet's atmospheric and surface temperatures are on the rise.

The re-evaluation comes as Siberia reports that its vast frozen Peatland is undergoing an unprecedented thaw.

www.abc.net.au...

It seems the evidence is mounting up in the debate for Global Warming. These new research papers virtually debunk most previous data collected which found no case for global warming.

I think even in the light of the new evidence that there will still be people arguing against the theory but it really seems a moot point now.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by Mayet]