There are a lot of people obsessively watching the retreat of Arctic ice as we approach summer's end. More of it melts every summer and some scientists believe that Arctic ice will disappear each summer as global warming continues.
Should we care? What would it affect? The answer seems to be, not much--unless you're a polar bear that uses the ice to rest on as it navigates and hunts around the polar ice cap. To humans, it wouldn't really make much of a difference. It might lead to commercial exploitation of an environmentally sensitive region. Some of the indigenous peoples inhabiting the area would have to put up with more development. Really, that's about it. Not trying to minimize it, but there are worse fates imaginable.
On the other hand, nobody talks very much about melting permafrost. Watching frozen mud melt may be as boring as it sounds. At any rate, it can't compete with the visuals of glaciers calving and icebergs falling into the sea, natural as they actually are.
But melting permafrost actually is more dangerous to us. About one fourth of all the land surface of the northern hemisphere is covered by permanently frozen rock and mud. But permanent doesn't quite mean what it used to. It's starting to melt as the world warms. And when it melts it releases both CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. This would have serious consequences, and if it all melted it might release 100 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
So why is everybody looking at and talking about Arctic ice instead of permafrost? The permafrost story got its share of coverage in 2008 and 2009, but it didn't make it onto the top agenda, while every day we see or read about that doggone Arctic ice.
The answer seems to be show business. It really is as simple as what makes a better picture. Every major story that has been used to promote active solutions to global warming has come with its own handy dandy cute little symbolic pictures--and they don't get any cuter than polar bears on ice floes, or mountains of ice crashing to the sea. It makes the story easier to sell, and the sharp marketing minds in the environmental organisations that have spent tens of millions on campaigns to raise funds and increase awareness know the power of visual aids.
But it has to make you wonder if the science ever gets to step in front of the drama. When one drama bubble gets popped, such as when it was revealed that Himalalyan glaciers are not in fact going to be 80% gone by 2035, it just disappears from the next group of brochures and videos. Nothing gets retracted or restated. They just quit talking about it. No correction, no apology, just on to the next drama bubble.
This might have worked back in the 60s or 70s, when environmental lobbies were far more effective. But media saturation has made this tactic obvious and it has served to increase, if not skepticism about the science, then at least cynicism about the promotions.
Which is contributing to a big problem in the making. That permafrost doesn't make pretty pictures. But it's worse when melted.
Comments
Permafrost, out of site out of mind? I think you do borehole measurements to examine permafrost. As such, it does not look like an easy parameter to monitor. Even with sea ice, while satellites can tell you the extent, you need to be much closer to the ice to measure the thickness. Apparently ice penetrating radars from slow flying aircraft seems to be the tool of choice but even here, it takes weeks to do a survey of a large area. Unless there is a reliable non-contact method such as ground penetrating radar, permafrost will likely be orders fo magnetue more difficult to measure. Roger Pielke Sr. has recommended total ocean heat content as the parameter to track the earth's changing temperature. First of all the oceans hold the bulk of surface heat. Secondly, the recently deployed Argo buoys has provided a pretty good measure of this parameter. Third its one of the least noisy measures of the earths temperature state and fourth since the oceans drive the weather, the surface temperatures and total ocean heat are probably the most important parameters to gauge where the weather and climate are going.
Sean
Baltimore, M
My comments keep getting disappeared by this crappy new examiner software.
I wrote better web pages than this before al gore invented the internet, even.
to recap the brilliant post i just lost:
1. first comment makes a great point - hard to argue over measurements when we can't measure at all.
2. dangerous to obsess too much about permafrost - that's the stuff we send big trucks driving across to go dig up oil from the sand in northern canada. nobody really wants to give up their cars, so nobody wants to find out permafrost really is delicate.
3. you're overstating the importance of melting permafrost. melting permafrost "may" release co2 and methane, and the amounts "may" be significant and affect global climate. keep in mind this is speculation from the same people who brought us warnings of tipping points where the deep ocean floors burp millions of tons of co2 to punish us for not loving and worshiping gaia.
Nobody knows if, and to what extent, permafrost is going to melt. These are all empty speculations. And if it melts - the question is how deep will it melt. It might melt in a layer of, say, 20 cm (8") on the surface, the rest staying frozen. It never melts all at once. And, after a couple of weeks, it freezes right back.
The idea of permafrost melting seems to me an empty scare tactic, with little substance.
The more I read about impacts on climate/weather the more I am amazed at the number of things that can stand between warm weather and cool weather.
Since we are not talking about big numbers here, a degree or two a century implied warming over the last two centuries. ( I say implied because, none of the observations can be trusted 100%, either direction). But one large volcanic eruption in the middle latitudes and more then two degrees can be wiped off to the negative.
There are solar issues that impact climate, and there may be human caused issues that cause climate, but the idea that mankind can rule the roost is pure flatulence, given the natural variances order of magnitude greater effect .
The permafrost scare has about the same 'robust scientific underpinnings' as the ocean acidification scare. The apocalyptic predictions are hooey. Carefully collected observational data is quickly demonstrating why they are hooey.
So far, the anthropogenic climate cataclysmic predictions (many predicted in the 1970's thru the 1990's) have flamed out-
-rapidly accelerating temperature rise.
-rapidly accelerating sea level rise.
-rapidly accelerating hurricane numbers.
-rapidly increasing hurricane intensities.
-accelerating coral reef destruction.
-accelerating species extinction.
-glacier loss accelerating in Greenland and Antarctic.
-ocean acidification accelerating.
-floods increasing in frequency and intensity.
-tornadoes increasing in frequency and intensity.
-draughts increasing in frequency and intensity.
-thermohaline circulation stopping.
-deserts expanding.
-tropical forests rapidly vanishing from climate stress.
-overall biosphere health rapidly deteriorating.
All of these hypotheses have been shown to be bunk by observations.
There isn't much left to be scared about regarding CO2...
Chris,
Well stated.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!