Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

The idea that more recent species are "more evolved" than ancient ones is not completely absurd.

"I am forced into speech because men of science have refused to follow my advice without knowing why. It is altogether against my will that I tell my reasons for opposing this contemplated invasion of the antarctic — with its vast fossil-hunt and its wholesale boring and melting of the ancient ice-cap — and I am the more reluctant because my warning may be in vain. Doubt of the real facts, as I must reveal them, is inevitable; yet if I suppressed what will seem extravagant and incredible there would be nothing left."

Whatever, drill away!

> Solemnly he came forward and mounted the round gunrest. He faced about and blessed gravely thrice the tower, the surrounding land and the awaking mountains. Then, catching sight of Stephen Dedalus, he bent towards him and made rapid crosses in the air, gurgling in his throat and shaking his head. Stephen Dedalus, displeased and sleepy, leaned his arms on the top of the staircase and looked coldly at the shaking gurgling face that blessed him, equine in its length, and at the light untonsured hair, grained and hued like pale oak.

It's pretty writing, but it is also pretty hard to read if you're used to the way people write nowadays.

Of course, I grew up reading a lot of books and short stories from that era, so maybe it's easier for my old brain, like riding a bicycle.

I read a lot of H.P. Lovecraft some 25 years ago, and I still have vivid imagined visual memories of the “unspeakable ancient horrors” described. Given this background, I find it strange that someone would get, or see, “absolutely nothing”.

I'd say H.P. Lovecraft is the literary equivalent of H.R. Giger. Different sub-genre of fiction, of course, but they've both contributed a similarly unique genre-defining take on things.

They are both associated with historically cold environments that are now warming up, but each has its own mechanism and likely impacts (clathrates may be worse, since methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but the permafrost melting is going to be with us for 1000's of years whereas methane will be with us for "only" a decade. Also permafrost is likely to be a potent methane producer as well while it thaws out.

On the one hand, if it succeeds in offing some element of, take your pick: modernity, liberal democracy, advanced civilisation, humanity, life on earth, terrifying as all get out. On the other, a maddeningly fascinating systems dysfunction at work.

Though on the whole, I'd prefer the tuition bill for this course were lower.

Assuming they really swept global warming under the rug, they did it because accounting for it was unpopular. We prefer to vote for a candidate that won't reduce our comfort rather than one who decides to tackle a problem most people don't really understand.

We are the ones to blame, governments just gave us what we wanted.

If anything, capitalism has an advantage in that it's at least theoretically possible to mitigate the effect of greed on politics. Throwing all your eggs into the government basket gives you no such recourse.

Yes, the model is called Venus.

> (which is what I thought the stakes were).

You were misinformed. The stakes are significantly higher than that.

Look back at ones from 20+ years ago to see what they predicted would be happening by now. It's pretty funny actually.

The Earth's systems always balance out over the long run. We don't stay trapped in ice ages or hot phases.

Does the carbon it takes to produce an iphone and then ship it here count? What about all the fuel/power used by military bases abroad? Does our purchasing of Foreign cars count?

We are no closer to that today then we were 20 years ago. There isn't even a vague plan for the United States to get there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

As one of the largest emitters per capita(more than double CO2e pp vs the EU), and at almost 15% of world emissions, there's a ton that can be done.

A few items that are huge emission sources and could use some attention:

* The reliance on single occupancy cars (94% of commuters) with poor gas mileage and long commutes

* Heavy meat and dairy consumption leading to big agriculture emissions (especially methane from cattle)

* Dominance of low quality, single family home construction that ignores local climate - poorly insulated 2x4 houses everywhere, average building is overly reliant on always on AC or furnace

We can no more blame other countries for increasing CO2 output than we can blame a grocery store down the block from opening when another closes (or, refuses to cater to new demand, to make a better analogy).

We'll only stop if we come up with an unambiguously better alternative, or something forces us. A acute problem is that if we stopped using carbon, people would die. (And the economy would contract, of course, but death is a stronger motivator).

We're above our carrying capacity without carbon use. But if we keep using it, we die, later.

I think the most no brainer approach is to push for a global carbon tax to prod development of renewables. Income taxes could be cut to offset, so at a low level this wouldn't hurt a country. This seems not very popular however, and no one has pushed for an international agreement on this point, instead pushing for whack a mole emissions reductions in single countries.

My most optimistic scenario is we do figure out an unambiguously better alternative, switch to it, and then also figure out some way to use the energy to suck carbon from the atmosphere (which has its own challenges).

nuclear war->there are maybe a few people left in bunkers.

If we were to get rid of the nuclear option then both your chain and my chain would not be viable.

Nukes before greenhouses?

Also for anyone to go nuclear there would have to be a strategic goal for that Russia nuking the US won’t really help their food shortage and vice versa.

With big brains and tools, humans can live in a much broader set of environmental conditions than any other species. While it doesn't make us extinction-proof, it makes us pretty hardy. It is hard to imagine what would destroy all the ecological niches that humans could survive in.

I would bet on the humans.

We are in for a rough ride over the next several hundred years.

Here's what I mean by that: For some species the survivability rate is inverse to the population density- the habitat fills up and a natural equilibrium results. But for other species there is a range of population densities where the survivability rate is positively correlated with population- so the more you have, the better they survive. Any species that moves in large herds is like that- the predators get full, they can't eat any more, and the dent the predators can make on the population is negligible. We are like that too; the more of us there are, the more we can specialize tasks and support each other, and the faster our population increases. (Up to some limit).

Swarming species are more delicate than they look though- passenger pigeons are a good example. Once some external force pushes the population below a certain level, the remainder have a much much harder time surviving. I don't know if people appreciate how easily a good nuclear war could cause the total extinction of humanity- once we lose the big interconnected economy, with all the easy to find resources gone, we could really be f*ed.

Think of all the other mundane ways people die everyday: disease, a bullet, or even just tripping off a sidewalk wrong and hitting your head on the curb. Is that really any better of a fate?

I think they mean that the bacteria will not reach room temperature (20℃), but will get just warm enough to thaw out (1℃ or 2℃).

The reason they could die is probably not heat, but lack of anything to eat.

It was a first human colony story. The creature is called "Grendel". No more spoilers...

If there was ever a sci-fi novel that should be made into a movie it's that one, IMHO.

Yes. I am feeding apples to you. You are feeding apples to me. that's why a feedback loop is called a loop.

> No, I am feeding apples back to you. I am the feedback loop. You are the source.

You are not a loop. You are a person.

I realize that sounds silly, but I think this actually is the miscomprehension at play. We are both sources. And sinks. That's literally the whole point of a feedback loop.

Because I'm writing this on a site with a combinator in the upper left-hand corner, consider the following programming/logic analogy:

     let A = λx.xx

     let A = λx.xx;
     AA

A is a function definition, not a diverging program. You are a person, not a loop.

The observation by llamataboot that "maybe we shouldn't execute AA given what we know about the definition of A" demonstrates a competent and accurate understanding of feedback loops.

This has everything to do with your characterization of those quotes. "We don't know for certain, but shit could get bad" is a perfectly reasonable basis for precaution. The precautionary principle is not "anti-scientific".

> It would benefit you to suppress your religious fervor for a few minutes and examine the facts for yourself.

What are you trying to accomplish with this sentence?