Why are Alaska's rivers turning orange?
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
___
After reading:
> "Scientists who have studied these rusting rivers agree that the ultimate cause is climate change. Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park. The heat may already have begun to thaw 40 percent of the park's permafrost"
> "Some researchers think acid from minerals is leaching iron out of bedrock that has been exposed to water for the first time in millennia. Others think bacteria are mobilizing iron from the soil in thawing wetlands."
___
Other thoughts: iron bearing silicates often contain gold. New gold rush?
-
Things like this have surely happened before but not while there were so many people around
Extinctions have happened before too, but that doesn't make them good
Could a significant amount of gold be extracted from the water that way? It would likely be a much more environmentally friendly way to mine gold given that there would be no digging required.
That's the sci-fi dream: all the elements you could want end up dissolved in varying amounts in seawater. It's unfortunately a hard engineering problem.
Yes, it is causing this. And many more things in those regions and all the world, for more time than a single framed picture.
> Scientists who have studied these rusting rivers agree that the ultimate cause is climate change. Kobuk Valley National Park has warmed by 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.32 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2006 and could get another 10.2 degrees C hotter by 2100, a greater increase than projected for any other national park. The heat may already have begun to thaw 40 percent of the park's permafrost, the layer of earth just under the topsoil that normally remains frozen year-round. McPhee wanted to protect the Salmon River because humans had “not yet begun to change it.” Now, less than 50 years later, we have done just that. The last great wilderness in America, which by law is supposed to be “untrammeled by man,” is being trammeled from afar by our global emissions.
Further, right under the image at the top of the article: "Tukpahlearik Creek in northwestern Alaska's Brooks Range runs bright orange where permafrost is thawing".
It doesn't help climate's cause to be hysterical without actually reading things you want to critique.
Heck, I live 2000 miles south now, and we can see our local glacier retreating yearly with our own eyes. Also it's raining today. In the middle of winter. Not good.
Oh wait.
PRC fossil usage is tapering.
US became the largest oil and lng exporter in the world.
10 million barrels of oil per day, 10 billion cubic feet of LNG per day.
Enabling exponential usage.
If PRC fossil imports is counted against her usage, then US fossil exports should be counted against hers to balance the account (and other major fossil producers). And that front, US is both the greatest fossil fuels user - 30% more than PRC in aggregate, and 6x more per capita, while also enabling other to use fossil fuels post shale boom. More than ANY other fossil exporter.
If US didn't increase its production then Russia could sell at higher price and many countries would be forced to buy it as there would be no alternative. This would allow it to continue the war longer and possibly attack more countries.
Unfortunately the formula of the problem is complex with many variables. There are no easy solutions.
The best strategy we have right now is to convince China to reduce its fossil fuel usage so everyone else could scale down.
e:
And the only effect of PRC consuming more energy for manufacturing is other countries can manufacture less. Why do we need to reshore / diversify / build redundant factories/supply chains. Clearly that's in jest, but the logic works both ways, why would PRC not harness energy to improve her geopolitic posture when US is using it to enhance hers. Long term demand also works on efficiency paradox, the more supply there is, the cheaper something becomes and the more it tends to be used. US ramping up more supply/reduces, or rather increase cost of green transition. Large reason why oil demand is set to plateau long term is PRC is using oil to make renewables with cheap RU and Iranian oil. The point is, as long as US benefits from being fossil exporter by playing up her geologic advantages, PRC is going to reap benefit from converting fossil to goods by playing up her manufacturing advantages.
When it comes to wealth then nobody demanded China to participate in single party controlled economy experiments that crippled its economical growth for decades and kept large parts of its population poor. Lets remind that this is the (perhaps naive) goodwill of the West that has allowed China to prosper.
Another point when it comes to per capita usage: China has tripled its population by close to 3 times post WW2. While US population has also increased then it has been in large part by immigration (including Chinese immigrants). The same applies to EU - they are sinks for the population growth in other countries while their native population declines.
Yes, per capita primary energy consumption of China is 2.5 times less than that of US, but US consumption is already by itself incredibly high. The difference between China and Germany is only 1.3 times and China is using more energy per capita than is United Kingdom.
So it is by no degree justified for China to expect the same level per capita energy usage as United States.
The first step for China is to stop aggressive increase in fossil fuel usage. If it can signal that it can be cooperative then other countries can make further adjustments. If China does not play along, US will neither.
Global policy coordination on Climate change focus on per capita goals post PRC population explosion, which is only metric countries can agreed. PRC absolutely has justification to expect same per capita energy usage, not just current, but historical, that is multiple times current because historical per capita actual factors in accumulation of wealth/capital/infra. Hence PRC emission rivalling developing EU countries, they're pouring centuries worth of concrete in a few years to catch up on infra, which is right of any nation behind on developing curve.
On topic of population flows, since PRC population decreasing, and US is increasing via immigration, and each US immigrant naturally adopts high per capita emissions, it's only "fair" that US also stops immigration. Of course that too is absurd. As is any proposal that that PRC would should limit fossil fuel usage to per capita levels below US and west. Ultimately, we both recognize neither US nor PRC has any interest in "playing along" because they benefit from increasing fossil usage.
The original comment was merely highlighting that US by virtue of becoming net exporter of crude + lng is increasing fossil fuel usage comparable to PRC. And that really EU is the only actor who has stagnated emission, but that's more due to policy failure than anything. US net contribution to fossil usage is anything but stagnate both in terms of industry and demographics. And unlike PRC trends which has peak/tipping points, US population increase + fuel exports will keep US as the largest per capita contributer to climate crisis. US is increasing ceiling for what is acceptable per capita for large country. And until that changes, no one else will be incentivized to settle at fraction of US per capita. If anything it would justify PRC start mass exporting coal once they're done their green transition.
To me, the answer is simple and just pointing at whataboutthem is just short sighted, like building a wall to fix internal crime rates.
Now the fossil fuel usage in the West is stagnating or even decreasing. If China will not play along then everybody will loose. Even when the West would stop its fossil fuel usage tomorrow, the total amount of fossil fuel usage will keep growing. Everybody will loose but until it happens, China will stay on top while everybody else will start suffering already today. Everyone who is smart will not play along in this game.
The only real solution is possible when China start cooperating.
If everyone waits till all the rest take a step forward no one will. Until is too late, of course, then everyone loses.
Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Time scales are huge, 1 year is different than 100 years than 100000 years than 1 million years.. what's "new" is very relative, come on.
You really want to still state today that global warming (to what permafrost thawing relates) is a narrative?
> Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.
Why you mean not? Does it matter if at that time fewer than 100 millions of humans inhabitated earth, and now we have billions.. and more than the number above will be threatened by sea level rise?
Second, and most fatally, yes there was a lot of vegetation there. There was also a time when there were plants on the antarctic. The sea levels were 20 meter higher back then, which may give you a clue it could be a slight problem, as you yourself indicate.
There were mass extinction events before. Natural or not, some people might say they would feel humankind going extinct or almost so is exactly what a catastrophe is, pointing out something similar has happened before doesn't make it any better.
So no, the narrative doesn't fall apart. Furthermore, it is not a narrative in the first place, it is a risk assesment based on scientific understanding. There is no drama, just facts and theories. The hand-wavy 'it is all natural thus its good because we live in a just world and that magically makes everything okay and eco-logical and stuff', now that is a narrative.
quelle surprise
Seems obvious now, doesn't it.
That's not banal? (im not being flippant - I just thought the conclusion was weak, and didnt feel like I learned much.
It made me re-think our whole approach to environmentalism. When we attempt to restore something, what are we restoring it to?
Its amazing to me that so many ancient civiliaations had an understanding of cycles many thousands of years long, and understood that things change in cycles, as opposed to linear....
Take, for example the Pyramid of Ku at Chichenitza...
I went there in 2001 with a Mayan Elder named Hunbatz Men [0] -- He explained the nature of the Pyramid as the calendar:
The pyramid is broken into a number of architectural elements that define various aspects of the solar calendar: the indentations on the sides of the steps of the pyramid are divided to reflect the year, the levels represent divisional seasons, the steps inside the pyramid leading to the top is 72 and it represents the 72,000 year cycle of the plieades over head - the graduations in the face of the steps of the pyramid are the 28 days of their 13 month year. The top of the pyramid is the correct height that when you look down the groove on the top cube, they align perfectly to the horizon in all directions - and a bunch of of ther aspects of time tracking. Its an amazing celestial clock.
https://www.council-of-world-elders.de/en/members/hunbatz-me...
And then there are humans, always against change ;) But some is reasonable, e.g. when life threatening conditions change. I step out of my house in freezing temperatures, if I don't do something I'll freeze.. I don't start philosophizing about where to restore it to, just wanna be safe and warm again.
I don't get all the clever insights. Environmentalism is already such a stupid term imo, this is not about saving the environment at all, or trying to keep the world the same. It is just human warranted egoism, about saving us.
Regarding stars and solar systems, over the lifespan of the universe those things are just blips.[2] In 110 trillion years the Milky Way will be down to about a hundred stars. That's a small fraction of the 10^10^120 years estimated to be the lifespan of the universe. So those aren't constants.
The only constant is decay (and C I guess). So I don't see what was too simple about what I said, or even how it was much different from what you said. There's no equilibrium to return to, and any environmental actions to try to restore that will have a problem.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4188511/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
There absolutely are equilibria in nature, all over the place. The idea of that "constant imbalance" is always the rule is simply false.
Now, as a rule at some point in time either an external force will interrupt things, or an energy source that was maintaining the equilibrium will run out. So no equilibrium will last indefinitely.
But an equilibrium can be maintained for an awfully long time -- much, much, much longer than you or I will be alive. It's not like populations are always either growing or shrinking. Absent man, they're generally extremely constant (allowing for seasonal oscillations and similar).
And to answer your question: when we seek to restore something, it's generally to as close as we can to the state of equilibirum it would be at without the industrial effects of man -- a level of rich biodiversity. We're almost never completely successful, but we can still do our best.
Modern ecology would like a word: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4188511/
A natural balance is the actual myth.
That paper is about the often religious belief in a long-term, divinely ordained balance of nature, that is often considered "universal" or some kind of "law". And of course that's a myth.
I went out of my way to point out that equilibria can absolutely exist over the short and medium term. And I never used the term "balance of nature".
And the paper is even very clear that mathematically, equilibria absolutely do exist, obviously:
> ...it is still arbitrary just how much temporal variation can be accommodated within a process or phenomenon for it still to be termed equilibrial. Often the decision on whether to perceive an ecological process as equilibrial seems to be based on whether there is some sort of homeostatic regulation of the numbers, such as density-dependence, which A. J. Nicholson suggested as an argument against Elton's skepticism of the existence of a balance.
It merely points out that there is an "arbitrary" line that must be drawn between statistical fluctuation and the equilibrium. But if a population of a certain species in a certain area is always between, say, 400 and 600, while other species maintain their own ranges, I think we'd all agree that an equilibrium exists. It's a complete strawman to say that it has to be precisely 523 every year just because a range of 500 to 600 is "arbitrary".
The paper is describing that there is no long-term, worldwide, fixed balance of nature, which of course there's not. But nowhere does it suggest that a local ecosystem can't remain in a state of equilibrium over a short- and medium-term.
Holy shit. 10°C is currently the difference between NY and DC, or Ohio and the Gulf of Mexico, or Montana and Southern California...