Permafrost Melting Will Cost Us $70 Trillion

19 minutes ago, specinho said:

i coached debate team ........once upon a time...... (alright.alright......... just ONE...... team)........... so please......... that's enough....... :D

If I told you I was in the national championship in debate you'd think I was bragging, so I won't. ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

If I told you I was in the national championship in debate you'd think I was bragging, so I won't. ;)

Thanks for not trying to brag. Otherwise i would like to ask:" if you remember me giving out the present on stage..........." xD I'm bluffing...... do not believe it.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

If I told you I was in the national championship in debate you'd think I was bragging, so I won't. ;)

Roll another Phat one dude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ronwagn said:

You must boil your meat. 

We tend to oven bake or wet roast. In the case of stews and casseroles the meat is effectively boiled. 

In any case a lot more of our food is fish (usually oven baked) or vegetarian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Not a chance. Exxon, BP, and Shell are already counting their trillions from carbon exchanges. You're deluded if you think they're against the story or that they'd put up a dime. That's what you get from your ridiculous sources and fevered imagination

Interestingly, at the same time they're all in on AGW and can't wait to exchange carbon credits, they have massive teams of engineers and scientists constantly monitoring pH near their offshore platforms. They'd dearly love the alkalinity to be decreasing, because that would save them Millions in corrosion mitigation. Unfortunately, their results don't jibe with the orthodoxy from your religion. 

Exxon were clearly in favour of a Carbon Tax on the basis it is administratively simple and hard to avoid, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Not a chance. Exxon, BP, and Shell are already counting their trillions from carbon exchanges. You're deluded if you think they're against the story or that they'd put up a dime. That's what you get from your ridiculous sources and fevered imagination

Interestingly, at the same time they're all in on AGW and can't wait to exchange carbon credits, they have massive teams of engineers and scientists constantly monitoring pH near their offshore platforms. They'd dearly love the alkalinity to be decreasing, because that would save them Millions in corrosion mitigation. Unfortunately, their results don't jibe with the orthodoxy from your religion. 

While my Shell and BP shares have been doing quite well I don't see trillions in their revenues.

So now the Big Oil Co's are in league with the Enviros. 

I need to do more analysis - if there are more people like you out there I shall go long on Aluminium.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Permafrost always melts to some extent. It is not really permanent! You should see the collapses in other areas of Siberia. It is a perpetual cycle of freezing and melting just like much of the world. Warmists use any phony story they can yet the sea level stays about the same. That is the only truth teller. 

🤦‍♀️

The word 'perma' is something you should perhaps look at in terms of meaning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2019 at 2:40 PM, ronwagn said:

 

-7pvxZPPq-x3mpNkRmF0NUOmJLT3MTEZR24IyW5BN4sm3Ee9QS_GVikU3Qq1JQgh6vIdUMfxUqpqesUK28RrHzERVfzfPTvJWWqu9YPAvUFa4irVMnj7pWRyCUmHhyD4RjL1jdmZ

Kind of the way "doctors" tell us that we need to do this or that, and they put so much emphasis on us needing to do that. 20 years later we discover that what they have been so confidently preaching to us is WRONG, someone will do a study and figure it out. I sometimes wonder if all the years of training dulls their sense of right and wrong, that being a doctor means you know everything and everyone should be listening to what they tell us without question. To me it becomes an issue of integrity then.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickW said:

While my Shell and BP shares have been doing quite well I don't see trillions in their revenues.

So now the Big Oil Co's are in league with the Enviros. 

I need to do more analysis - if there are more people like you out there I shall go long on Aluminium.

 

You DO understand carbon credits and exchanges don't you? They're not making money from it yet, because it hasn't been passed into law yet. 

If you were even close to being as intelligent as you pretend you are, I wouldn't need to baby spoon feed these simple concepts. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You DO understand carbon credits and exchanges don't you? They're not making money from it yet, because it hasn't been passed into law yet. 

If you were even close to being as intelligent as you pretend you are, I wouldn't need to baby spoon feed these simple concepts. 

you said;

'Exxon, BP, and Shell are already counting their trillions from carbon exchanges'. 

So the point above is complete nonsense. 

Anyway - if you are right then the best thing to do is buy an EV - stick a shed load of solar on your roof and stick 2 fingers up at the Big Oil Co's. 😊

Elon has just cut the cost of solar panels by 38% and I bet you can get a good deal on a Model 3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

15 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I'm unconvinced of your "methodology" source. KISS principles apply. It is of interest that the word "buffer" keeps coming up in your source. Ever wonder why? Perchance was I entirely correct in my very first statement? Why yes, yes I was. Are you and Enthalpic edumacated enough to follow all this? The jury is still out

Alkalinity is a measure of the buffering capacity of seawater, or the total amount of H+ that can be absorbed by the solution (alternate definitions: excess of bases over acids; or difference in number of non-proton exchanging cations and anions in solution). To measure alkalinity, seawater is titrated with acid to a specified endpoint (pH=4.5) where essentially all of the proton acceptors have reacted.

Where did your beef with me start?  It certainly wasn't from my chemistry knowledge... no I suspect you just don't like my left leaning views so now you are barking up the wrong tree.

You know you can buy a small auto-titrator that does pH, conductivity and alkalinity with ease - it's far from a difficult analysis (well with seawater you have be a bit more careful as the due to ionic strength effects and the small chloride interference on the Ag/AgCl ref electrode hence the matrix matching, but I digress.) 

My former organization has a large ship that does sampling cruises on the great lakes and they have more than one on board as pH/alk samples have very short holding times and therefore can't be shipped to our labs like most other analysis.

You post a picture of your chem degree and I'll show you mine.  Or I can just teach you here. LOL

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2019 at 12:06 AM, Enthalpic said:

NaCl has essentially no buffering capacity.

This was where, "the beef" started. I don't want to criticise your educational institution for your lack of scholarship. Perhaps it's that you're out of practice? After all, what exactly is it you do other than have Nick W follow you around upvoting your posts and stepping into discussions like your sock puppet? 

As to degrees etc, it's not the degree, it's what you do with it that matters. Bill Gates and Paul Allen (among others) famously dropped out of school to achieve great things. How is it that all these companies run or founded by dropouts have such massive valuations? I hire and fire degrees all the time, I'm more interested in results than sheepskin. When I hand an employee a problem, the degree on the wall doesn't solve it. 

Meanwhile I've achieved my goal, you've realized your mistake, you've refreshed your chemistry knowledge and even if it came at the cost of you crying in your beer and siccing a moderator on me, it's worth it. Now go back to your bureaucracy I'm sure you love it, hiding in cubicle kingdom and never having to achieve anything meaningful. Enjoy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

This was where, "the beef" started. I don't want to criticise your educational institution for your lack of scholarship. Perhaps it's that you're out of practice? After all, what exactly is it you do other than have Nick W follow you around upvoting your posts and stepping into discussions like your sock puppet? 

As to degrees etc, it's not the degree, it's what you do with it that matters. Bill Gates and Paul Allen (among others) famously dropped out of school to achieve great things. How is it that all these companies run or founded by dropouts have such massive valuations? I hire and fire degrees all the time, I'm more interested in results than sheepskin. When I hand an employee a problem, the degree on the wall doesn't solve it. 

Meanwhile I've achieved my goal, you've realized your mistake, you've refreshed your chemistry knowledge and even if it came at the cost of you crying in your beer and siccing a moderator on me, it's worth it. Now go back to your bureaucracy I'm sure you love it, hiding in cubicle kingdom and never having to achieve anything meaningful. Enjoy. 

Not really its just that recalling my 30 year old Chemistry Enthalpic appears to be talking sense whereas most of what you say appears to be complete drivel and predictably you just revert to that old standby - conspiracy theories 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

50 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

 

Meanwhile I've achieved my goal, you've realized your mistake, you've refreshed your chemistry knowledge

 

I made no mistake. 

I resigned about a year ago because I was bored and have plenty of money.  15.5 years with the same organization was enough (in various roles). Do you make fun of other retirees here?

That said I've almost rested enough so I sent my CV to another lab the other day for a management opening.  If I don't get it I really don't care - because dividends.

Until next thread 🍺 🍺

PS my office had a door

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SERWIN said:

Kind of the way "doctors" tell us that we need to do this or that, and they put so much emphasis on us needing to do that. 20 years later we discover that what they have been so confidently preaching to us is WRONG, someone will do a study and figure it out. I sometimes wonder if all the years of training dulls their sense of right and wrong, that being a doctor means you know everything and everyone should be listening to what they tell us without question. To me it becomes an issue of integrity then.....

An educated person should be prepared to question their healthcare providers. You may need to read up on your own health problems to get the best healthcare. Healthcare professionals are told by their employers to spend 15 minutes face to face time and five minutes for paperwork. Obviously, that does not give much time for patient education, thorough diagnostics, patient communication etc. 

The obesity epidemic is also a sure sign that the traditional advice on diet is not working. People are mainly very sedentary today and are faced with fast food, prepared food, sugar, salt, etc. at every turn. 

I am presently having to eat only one meal per day to deal with my own gluttony. Imagine the horror of many people with that. See information on intermittent fasting for more information on that. 

Do you remember the catastrophic results of the low fat foods that were pushed on the American people? That is when the population started to get much fatter. Simple carbohydrates and transfats are the worst elements of most diets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NickW said:

🤦‍♀️

The word 'perma' is something you should perhaps look at in terms of meaning

Nothing important that I could find. It seems to be just a way of saying permanent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I made no mistake. 

I resigned about a year ago because I was bored and have plenty of money.  15.5 years with the same organization was enough (in various roles). Do you make fun of other retirees here?

That said I've almost rested enough so I sent my CV to another lab the other day for a management opening.  If I don't get it I really don't care - because dividends.

Until next thread 🍺 🍺

PS my office had a door

Your mistake, clearly here in the record was Assuming common table salt NaCl was the buffering agent in the ocean. Obviously that's wrong. Incredibly wrong for someone claiming to be a chemist. 

However I grow as tired of this discussion as you and am opening a fine wine to celebrate my victory. 

BTW I retired the first time at age 38 and have never had to draw a salary since then. However i quickly got bored and have founded or co-founded at least a dozen companies since then. Quit applying for jobs if you're so smart, work for yourself, it's the surest way to wealth (only if you're smart). If you're just another salary man that would of course be a huge mistake. 

Cheers 🍷🍷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

An educated person should be prepared to question their healthcare providers. You may need to read up on your own health problems to get the best healthcare.

Absolutely.

I had an inguinal hernia and when I went to my appointment with my regular clinic I just straight out said "I have a left side reducible inguinal hernia that needs a surgery referral." She was skeptical, felt my junk area and asked me to cough, and then gave me the referral. 

Okay this is a funny story.  When I get to the surgeon office he starts explaining inguinal hernias in super simple terms like bike tires... so I interrupt him and say if he is planning on using the TAPP, PEP, or open technique.

He immediately recognizes that I did my homework and says that it was going to be an open procedure.  I told him I wanted TAPP instead because I like to bike and run.  He called me an exercise junky and agreed to do the laparoscopic TAPP instead of the open - it reduced recovery time by 4 to 6 weeks because I knew my stuff.  Cost is no factor in Canada - I paid exactly zero out of pocket for that laparoscopic repair.

Anyways, the funny part was I went to a university hospital doctor -and therefore he teaches students- so right after he is done talking with me he asks if his student can repeat the whole process with me; I like to think of myself of a man of science so I surrender myself as a lab rat thinking some dorky med student is about to come in the door.

No, Instead this drop-dead gorgeous young woman walks in!  I'm like cool, I can handle her just grabbing my junk for a cough or two - which she did - and it was no problem.  I was glad that was over.... but no.

The surgeon says "did you feel the opening and see the bulge?" (referring to the hernia). "Kneel down and get a good look at it." 

I'm like are you fing kidding me? Sure enough this young Asian model doctor kneels down at my feet...

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 3:38 PM, esgeo said:

I know y'all hate political correctness, but the verdict is still out on scientific correctness from my experience here. Anyhow, I thought you all should know that permafrost does not "melt" as it degrades, rather it "thaws" (see article below). I doubt this knowledge has much effect on your enjoyment of reveling in outrage on the subject, but thought you may appreciate being better informed of the physics of what is actually happening...

 

From EOS, V.91, n 9, p. 87, Mar. 2010

Why Permafrost Is Thawing, Not Melting

As global climate change is becoming an increasingly important political and social issue, it is essential for the cryospheric and global change research communities to speak with a single voice when using basic terminology to communicate research results and describe underlying physical processes. Experienced science communicators have highlighted the importance of using the correct terms to communicate research results to the media and general public [e.g., Akasofu, 2008; Hassol, 2008]. The consequences of scientists using improper terminology are at best oversimplification, but they more likely involve misunderstandings of the facts by the public.

A glaring example of scientifically incorrect terminology appearing frequently in scientific and public communication relates to reports on the degradation of permafrost. Numerous research papers have appeared in recent years, broadly echoed in the news media, describing the “melting of permafrost,” its effects in the Arctic, and its feedbacks on climate through the carbon cycle. Although permafrost researchers have attempted to distinguish between the appropriate term “permafrost thawing” and the erroneous “permafrost melting” [e.g., van Everdingen, 2005; French, 2002], the latter is still used widely. A Web-based search using the phrase “permafrost melting” reveals hundreds of occurrences, many from highly regarded news and scientific organizations, including Reuters, New Scientist, ABC, The Guardian, Discovery News, Smithsonian magazine, the National Science Foundation, and others.

“Permafrost melting” is incorrect terminology that results from a misinterpretation of the physical process of permafrost degradation. “Melting” describes a physical phase change during a temperature increase when a solid substance is transformed into a liquid state. Hence, the term “permafrost melting” suggests the transition of solidly frozen permafrost terrain into a liquid. However, permafrost is properly defined as “all ground (earth material) that remains below 0° Celsius for at least two consecutive years” [van Everdingen, 2005]. As such, it is composed of soils, sediments, bedrock, and organic materials, which may or may not include water in the form of ice. Some of these substrates contain ice in pore space and cracks, or include larger bodies of almost pure ice, while others are completely ice-free. Ice-rich permafrost, like the Siberian Yedoma-type deposits, contains more than 70% ice by volume in its upper 30 meters. Warming this ground above 0°C will have dramatic effects on the terrain due to the volume loss from melting ice and subsequent differential subsidence of the land surface, a process often referred to as thermokarst. But even in such ice-rich permafrost types, only that 70% or so of the ground volume constituting the ice melts—not the mineral and organic component of the permafrost. To speak of “melting permafrost” implies that all components of permafrost are turning into a liquid, which is erroneous. In terrain types with much less ground ice, which are widespread in the Arctic and in alpine mountain regions [Brown et al., 1998], warming above 0°C will have virtually no direct impact on the land surface.

Use of the term “permafrost melting” not only indicates misunderstanding of permafrost properties and the processes involved in permafrost degradation, but also leads to misinterpretation of the potential consequences of this process. Because melting
of ice—a physically valid phrase—is common knowledge, the inappropriate phrase “permafrost melting” conveys an image of permafrost as a form of underground ice, undergoing a complete solid-to-liquid transition much like glaciers and ice sheets. Defrosting food is a much better analogy for communicating about permafrost thaw to the general public. Like most,foodstuffs, permafrost does not liquefy completely when its temperature exceeds 0°C. Similarly, during permafrost thaw, only the ground ice melts, while mineral and organic particles, which represent the majority in many permafrost types by volume, remain solid.


Although some individuals may regard “permafrost melting” as an acceptable simplification, we advocate a different view. “Permafrost melting” is partly an oversimplification that ignores basic geophysical processes and partly sloppy science communication, both with unwanted implications for communicating scientific information and educating students and the public about climate change.

This example from permafrost research has equivalents in other geophysical research fields—for example, some writers refer to sea ice on the Arctic Ocean as an “ice cap,” although that term properly applies to bodies of glacial ice of particular dimensions and morphology. Sometimes scientific writers unknowingly neglect or oversimplify basic physical, biological, or chemical processes, especially when working across disciplines. We strongly encourage authors working on cross-disciplinary topics or reaching outside their own research fields to ensure that they use basic terminology accurately. We also encourage reviewers and editors of scientific journals receiving manuscripts to be more rigorous in following up on the use of appropriate scientific terminology for basic physical processes.

References Akasofu, S.-I. (2008), A suggestion to climate scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(11), 108, doi:10.1029/ 2008EO110005. Brown, J., O. J. Ferrians Jr., J. A. Heginbottom, and E. Melnikov (1998), Circum-Arctic map of permafrost and ground-ice conditions, in Circumpolar Active-Layer Permafrost System, Version 2.0 [CDROM], edited by M. Parsons and T. Zhang, Natl. Snow and Ice Data Cent./World Data Cent. for Glaciol., Boulder, Colo. French, H. (2002), Thaw vs melt: An editorial, Frozen Ground, 26, 6–7. Hassol, S. J. (2008), Improving how scientists communicate about climate change, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(11), 106–107, doi:10.1029/2008EO110002. van Everdingen, R. O. (Ed.) (2005), Multi-language glossary of permafrost and related ground-ice terms, World Data Cent. for Glaciol., Boulder, Colo. (Available at http://nsidc.org/fgdc/glossary)

—Guido Grosse and Vladimir Romanovsky, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks; E-mail: ggrosse@gi.alaska.edu; Frederick E. Nelson, Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark; Jerry Brown, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Mass.; and Antoni G. Lewkowicz, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Interesting, yet none of this changes the fact that whatever we choose to call the effect, it comes with serious damages and related costs. Buildings constructed on it will still be subject to issues of softening ground, potentially dangerous microorganisms may still be released as it warms, methane locked away will still be released into the atmosphere and so on and so forth.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those that seem to think this is some sort of "alarmism" that won't come to pass, think again. The planetary fluids are clearly warming, there's 0 doubt about this. There is also no doubt about how thermodynamics works in general or the properties of greenhouse gases, methane being an intense greenhouse gas. There's certainly no doubt about what happens to frozen ground when it thaws. Here's a hint, it won't become more stable. So while pollution can be tackled and has been tackled in many developed countries which is likely why we aren't all wearing masks now btw (the Chinese have been known to wear masks in polluted cities so clearly whoever said this was a potential future if we do not act was actually correct), this issue is different with it's extensive tail of already initiated effects that will take decades or even centuries to reverse even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases around the world right now. That's not to say we should just keep emitting as much as we darn please since every additional year of intense emissions will simply make the situation worse. These are facts, if you find yourself debating these, you simply haven't understood the problem.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Your mistake, clearly here in the record was Assuming common table salt NaCl was the buffering agent in the ocean. Obviously that's wrong. Incredibly wrong for someone claiming to be a chemist. 

However I grow as tired of this discussion as you and am opening a fine wine to celebrate my victory. 

BTW I retired the first time at age 38 and have never had to draw a salary since then. However i quickly got bored and have founded or co-founded at least a dozen companies since then. Quit applying for jobs if you're so smart, work for yourself, it's the surest way to wealth (only if you're smart). If you're just another salary man that would of course be a huge mistake. 

Cheers 🍷🍷

Cool - I bet you were the greatest dancer too💃

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSgUM2Z3uPA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
 
1
On 4/24/2019 at 1:29 AM, Joseph Scarafone said:

But then later goes on to say the sun has no affect on Anthropogenic warming.   

Um, Anthropogenic means "caused by people", so the sun cannot possibly have an effect on "Anthropogenic" global warming by definition.  Global warming is.  How much is Anthropogenic and how much is natural can be debated.  However, it is absolutely possible that both nature and the Anthropocene play a role.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites