My sister's neighborhood in Fairbanks has two permafrost sink holes, one on top of a house which had to be abandoned.

My sister in Anchorage told me small sinkholes are appearing in the roads from the melting and portions of Turnagain Arms are closed to the public.

I wonder how long it will be before long sections of interstate look just like that, or worse.

so it might be Alaska. I know that they have been experiencing the melting of permafrost there and I saw it myself when I drove on the Alaska Highway in 2008. There were several parts of the highway that were being repaired due to sagging caused by the melting of permafrost underneath. Not as bad as this photo but enough to require repair. I also know that a significant part of Anchorage is built on top of permafrost.

And if I remember the picture caption from when I first saw it, it was on the Seward Hwy.

Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2013, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Siberia.

Corrected. Thanks.

This is beyond disturbing. I need to start taking more seriously my efforts to reduce my own carbon footprint. Perhaps if we all lead by example, then others will take notice and follow suit. Perhaps not. But, we can all do something about this in our own lives... so I'm going to try.

I too will expect it sooner. It seems so many climate articles state that things are happening much sooner than modeled.

2050 is a conservative estimate for the point of no return. It's good science, but it really doesn't convey the urgency of the situation.

and off the planet by then!

2 years. I cry for my grandchild.

And what impact would it have?

NOTE: I am not a denier, this is a serious question. What do the real experts suggest we do, what impact would it have, and how soon?

but it would take a major, concerted effort. Do you think that's going to happen with the U.S. government in the state it's in today? Or in China, which does seem to be lurching in the right direction but slowly?

Here's something you don't want to know - it will include building a bunch more safely constructed, safely located nuclear power plants. Every other source of energy that is plentiful enough is far too polluting. I have no dog in this fight (to use a horrible metaphor); I don't work for the nuclear power industry. I was trained as a physicist. But if it were up to me, I wouldn't sacrifice the planet because people think giant radioactive ants in the subways and get hysterical when they think nuclear power.

What I think is going to happen is that there is going to be a planet wide ecological disaster. Probably the earth will turn unto an uninhabitable hell hole like Venus, because there's a feedback loop in this mess. The best scenario I see is widespread destruction and a few remnants of humanity in some still barely livable areas.

At this point, I am most sorry that we're taking the other species with us. We;re as bad as the worse violent felons imaginable.

Obama's failure to address this is my biggest disappointment with him by far. He was elected with the opportunity to use the bully pulpit to accomplish something and he didn't measure up to it.

Too bad we didn't elect my senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, as President:

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2013/03/week-after-week-sen-whitehouse-sounds-the-alarm-on-climate-change.html

"Nearly every week when Congress is in session, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has stood on the Senate floor to deliver a speech on the dangers of climate change.

If Congress doesn't act quickly, Whitehouse warns, global warming will lead to more air pollution, rising oceans, disease-carrying ticks and mosquitoes, Sandy-like storms and a wave of floods, heat waves, wildfires and droughts.

Whitehouse, a Democrat, says global warming is the top issue facing the country today, ahead of the economy, gun control and health care."

The EPA reports to the President, the last I heard:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/science/earth/03air.html

"The president rejected a proposed rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that would have significantly reduced emissions of smog-causing chemicals, saying that it would impose too severe a burden on industry and local governments at a time of economic distress."

You assumed that I do not understand the immediate need for energy and that I have some terror of nuclear power. I agree with you that right now, as a temporary measure, we need to build a BUNCH of the new safe design nuke plants (I think owned and operated by the government). And by a bunch, I mean hundreds. We not only need to offline the plants running way past their original cutoff date, but we need to replace coal and gas plants as rapidly as we can. Further, we need to get gas cars off the roads and replaced with electric.

The question: would this be enough?

Assuming we could magically replace every car and powerplant overnight, would the US going this route be enough, or would we NEED China and Russia and India on board as well?

I ask because you probably know a whole lot more than me about this.

There is no need for nuclear power to address climate change. In fact nuclear power is a diversion of resources that are more effectively spent deploying renewable energy. Renewables are less expensive, easier to deploy, faster to deploy and make a more dependable electrical system than the centralized thermal system. Also, the size of the renewable resources dwarfs nuclear's potential.

There are no comparative studies that look at the full portfolio of energy sources and conclude anything except that renewables are, by far, the most efficacious solution to climate change.

Right now the US gets almost 20% of it's power from Nuclear. Wind and all other renewables combined make up less than 5%.

But the challenge is not replacing nuclear with wind, it is replacing all of the coal and gas power plants -- or about 70% of our total plant output -- plus the necessary capacity to convert petroleum powered autos to electric. If you want to do all that then you need an INCREDIBLE amount of power. More, you need that power all the time in a steady perfect stream. Something that at present no nation on earth has managed to do. Even Germany uses renewables as filler, backed by other traditional sources.

Nuclear can do it -- the newest plant designs are incredibly safe -- and it provides the perfect stop gap while we bring solar and wind power online.

Or we can wait while solar and wind slowly trickles online, with added capacity likely not even keeping up with growing demand.

If this crisis is a real as the scientists say (and I believe them) then we have to act today. Immediately. We need to grab EVERY form of non-greenhouse power we can and sprint with it. And that includes nuclear.

All of the experts specializing in a transition to a carbon free energy system disagree with you. We use fossils because the infrastructure is a legacy of what worked best in the past. We use nuclear because it fit into that centralized system and was seen as having the potential to augment the centralized system that depends on fossil fuels.
An energy system is composed of many elements and the way those elements work together define how the economics work. Renewables work together differently than centralized thermal. They are, in fact, able to produce a superior system because of its distributed nature, and this builds redundancy into the system to make it more reliable than one prone to cascade failures.
Contrary to your "all of the above" approach, it is wasteful in the extreme to pursue ineffective solutions, such as nuclear or coal with CCS. That view is a result of nothing more than political kowtowing to the established powers in the energy field and it simply isn't true.

Renewables are right now shutting down centralized power generation. If you look at the proposals for companies seeking to build nuclear, you'll find they the plan to expand coal along with building nuclear. Nuclear reenforces the economics that support coal - renewables destroy those economics and replaces them with a system of local control over energy supplies.



Duke CEO confirms threat renewables pose to their business model
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737600

Forgive me please for being direct, but ultimately it comes down to this:

There is not a single industrialized nation on earth that produces most, let alone all of its electrical energy needs with carbon free renewable energy. Germany, which everyone is talking about, produces about 25% maximum in this way, and that took 12 years to accomplish. They have a renewable system backed up by conventional power of all types. No one has managed to hit even 50% yet, no one is even close, and no one is actually sure it will work. It might or it might not.

But we need to do more than just convert our existing power production to renewable. MUCH more. Converting all electrical production to renewable would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 35%. In other words, if we want to REALLY put a massive dent in our greenhouse gas emissions we need to go after all of it. That means electric cars, and that means we need to produce FAR more electricity than we do today, and do it in a climate friendly way.

Everything that I just wrote is fact or conclusion based upon facts. That's what I have on my side of this little debate.

On your side you have a few experts working for the renewable energy industry (and make no mistake, it's an industry) making demonstrably false claims about how they are really putting a dent in the centralized industry. I have no doubt that somewhere down the road their statements will be correct, but they are not accurate TODAY, and today is when we need to act.

Right now there is only one non-greenhouse source of electricity that can meet our needs. Today we have 104 nuclear reactors, operating at 65 sites, producing about 20% of our power needs. To meet all of our current power needs, plus replacing these existing reactors, would require about 600 new reactors. These can, of course, be scattered to take advantage of the localized model if that matters. To provide enough power for growth, plus a transition to electrical vehicles, would likely require at least that many again. We use a lot of energy.

We have the technology to produce all of our power in this way. We can begin now, immediately, and within a decade we could likely reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by an incredible amount. Or we can continue to wait while solar and wind gradually gains (I suspect highly subsidized) market share. One way helps the planet virtually immediately and might even solve the problem, the other might well be far too little too late.

Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:46 AM - Edit history (1)

If you wish to choose the most effective solution going forward the "whys" of where we are now are crucial; when you ignore the evolution of our sources of generation and the reasons we are where we are regarding the energy mix you cripple your understanding of what is happening.

There is no validity to a claim based on the status quo unless you can show how the circumstances that created it are still dominating the world. Since those circumstances no longer hold sway, then the current set of technologies - especially their technical characteristics and their economics - must be reevaluated from scratch. We've known for decades that a distributed renewable energy supply is technically feasible and more reliable than any centralized system can possible. We now know that it is also less expensive than any of the centralized options and faster at achieving carbon reductions than nuclear.

To the capitalists who would own and run new nuclear power plants, there is no 'we' when they think about people like you and I. THEY have spent their lives denying the very concept of society. They would sooner use the that power to create ocean and space habitats for rich people than let that power keep a single public school running.

Why do you think there has been such a push for mini nuke power plants? Powering regional grids is not the idea, nor is that power intended to ever be affordable to the average American.

Increasing the amount of highly concentrated power that rests in the hands of a few is a recipe for disaster.

For every country that is not tightly aligned with NATO and Wall St. banks, nuclear power is considered to be too dangerous. The only exceptions I'm aware of are countries like China that are too large to bully.

That I believe ALL new nuclear plants should be owned and operated by the government. I am 100% opposed to private corporate ownership of something this dangerous. The newest plant designs are damn near fool proof, but that doesn't mean I trust a corporation to be anywhere near them.

.

I prefer we leave Iran and every other country alone.

Look at what we now know, 50 years on, about Hanford (US) and Shellafield's (UK) disastrous handling of nuclear wastes from weapons. There is no reason to think the treatment of civilian wastes would be any more trustworthy.

Also see these posts just up-thread.

So the answer is no, you have nothing to support your belief.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737679#post35


You use no data and poor reasoning to support your position
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737679#post43

It's amazing. The technology exists to do this safely and yet we cannot TRUST anyone to actually do it safely.

Billions in waste, billions already burned and buried, and these plants will never go online.

Money that could have bought off-the-shelf renewable hardware.

we could halt atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 2050. It almost happened at the height of nuclear construction in 1983, so it's well within the realm of possibility. That analysis is a couple of years old, however, and there have been ominous permafrost/clathrate discoveries in the meantime. Most climatologists agree now that it would only buy some time.

I vote for buying time, because it's our only chance.

We have enough concrete, steel, factories, uranium.

What we don't have is commitment.

22 months ago:

If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...
– nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;
– this means 1,700 reactors of1,000MWe each.


What is the significance to nuclear weapons proliferation control efforts:
If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
– enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
– diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
– the associated flow of separated, directly weapon- usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
– diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

Volume of nuclear waste would be enormous:
Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
– 34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.


I've plagiarized a presentation by Pres. Science Advisor Holdren here. The bolded text is my commentary.

It would be desirable for it to be (A) a comparative analysis of the various energy options and not just (B) one that presupposes a need for nuclear.

Things we COULD do if humankind lived under a sane political-economic system:

1. Radically change our energy use patterns, producing locally and focusing on sustainable, necessary production

2. A world-wide crash program to develop solar (large-scale and local) and wind as well as other relatively low-cost low-impact renewables.

3. Shift resources from war to survival

The first will not happen, probably, because our global economic system is currently based on stimulating over-consumption and taking advantage of regional differences for profit.

The second will have trouble getting enthusiastic, consistent backing in a world of governments owned by vulture capitalists: solar and wind are not subject to the scarcity and entry costs of fossil and nuclear and thus not much fun for big monopoly-capitalist corporations.

The third will not happen because war begets war in an endless cycle of madness.

-----

I think it is important to differentiate the social and technical problems (quite solvable) from the political-economic problems (possibly insurmountable, in my unhappy opinion).

Lets assume we can do all that.

Would it be enough to correct the problem?

The second is happening as we speak. The economics of renewables are right now starting to pose a major problem for the profitability of centralized thermal. Wind and solar are becoming the least cost alternative and that diminishes the market share of the centralized thermal systems - meaning coal and nuclear are selling less power - meaning they have to charge more to meet their overhead - meaning the market position of renewables becomes even more attractive.

here on Earth.


I know it because some bronze age tribesman predicted it.


No worries.




(for the sarcasm impaired)

I say 2020.

I feel really anxious about what is in store for him.

I see the young people are worried but if we don't pay attention these young people who will finally start reaching an age to where they can hold office might be to late. When the like of people like Inhoefe is in the body of congress how can anything be done. They don't believe.

and it seems they've overcompensated.

The first IPCC assessment (1990) gave global temperature projections that were slightly high. Deniers seized on that and made enough noise, IMO, that subsequent projections were overly conservative.

"The IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR) was published in 1990. The FAR used simple global climate models to estimate changes in the global mean surface air temperature under various CO2 emissions scenarios. Details about the climate models used by the IPCC are provided in Chapter 6.6 of the report.

The IPCC FAR ran simulations using various emissions scenarios and climate models. The emissions scenarios included business as usual (BAU) and three other scenarios (B, C, D) in which global human greenhouse gas emissions began slowing in the year 2000. The FAR’s projected BAU greenhouse gas (GHG) radiative forcing (global heat imbalance) in 2010 was approximately 3.5 Watts per square meter (W/m2). In the B, C, D scenarios, the projected 2011 forcing was nearly 3 W/m2. The actual GHG radiative forcing in 2011 was approximately 2.8 W/m2, so to this point, we’re actually closer to the IPCC FAR’s lower emissions scenarios.

As shown in Figure 2, the IPCC FAR ran simulations using models with climate sensitivities (the total amount of global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, including amplifying and dampening feedbacks) corresponding to 1.5°C (low), 2.5°C (best), and 4.5°C (high). However, because climate scientists at the time believed a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a larger global heat imbalance than today’s estimates, the actual climate sensitivities were approximately 18% lower (for example, the ‘Best’ model sensitivity was actually closer to 2.1°C for doubled CO2)."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/03/1378431/contrary-to-contrarian-claims-ipcc-temperature-projections-have-been-exceptionally-accurate/

The heat of fusion of ice is 80 calories/gram, after which it's 1 calorie to increase 1 gram of water 1C.

The heavy lifting has done, and it's essentially over at this point for Arctic sea ice, seasonally at first, then permanently.

The warming that will now come every summer, every year for the foreseeable future in the Arctic will be much more rapid, and far more powerful in its effects than the trend we've seen to date, which has been bad enough.

What will come with it, in terms of truly massive releases of both carbon and methane, is likely to throw a bigger bucket of meteorological bolts into the machinery of crop weather and climate predictability than we could possibly imagine.

So, as you can imagine, I'm not terribly concerned with an 18% overestimate of climate sensitivities in the immediate historic past. I'm a bit more interested in the likely unfolding of high-speed, high-consequence events in the near or medium-term future.

I read thier post and had a similar conclusion. The arctic sea ice has been a moderator.

2050? Don't make me larf....

We (mankind) are in for a VERY rough ride...and alot sooner than we think...

that it will not happen around that time? That it will happen much sooner? I say "it", without really having a firm understanding of what "it" is. Water-World? Noah's flood? The full implications are just beyond my comprehension.

faster than expected.

unfortunately...2050 in scientist years is more like 2015 in reality need to prepare my kids for the worst, I'm afraid...

These people don't get it.

The bullet just hasn't hit us yet.

Climate Change and Positive Feed Back Loops

It is all about thermal equilibrium, and a radiative forcing very near zero, last found pre industrial period at near 270 ppm CO2e. Much above that, and the planet slowly starts heating. At todays levels near 397 ppm CO2 and 470+ CO2e, most all of the earth's thermal sub systems are in positive feedback. They are all feeding into global heating, which in turn will result in rising mean global surface temperatures. Many of the feedbacks are temperature or concentration/temperature driven feedbacks that develop many second order feedbacks.

http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/EEA_Presentation/frameset.htm?p=1

Feedback Dynamics Model - Meridian Programme 2006

Section 2 - Industrial Disturbance of Thermal Equilibrium

In geological history there have been several major disturbances of the basic thermal equilibrium. In each case sharp changes in atmospheric constitution have been generated by asteroidal impact or massive volcanic activity. There is typically a release of short lived aerosol particulates, sulphur gases which wash out as acid rain, and a sharp and longer lasting rise in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The resultant abnormally enhanced greenhouse effect drives radiative forcing significantly away from equilibrium. Each event precipitated un-damped positive feedback and runaway global warming. Under these conditions, previously stable bio-geo-chemical systems were disturbed and most extant life-forms became extinct. It took several millennia for the atmospheric CO2 to be sequestered, thermal equilibrium to be restored and radiative forcing to return to zero. It took several million years for the evolutionary biosphere to regenerate.

Earth System Feed Back Dynamics -

Note: below is a partial list of known systemic feedbacks, when the thermal equilibrium has been compromised, and the planet is in a heating cycle. Many of the effects listed in the categories below, become second level feedbacks unto themselves as well, resulting yet more heat into the primary systemic feedback. Each subject in italics has been condensed by myself to give a general overview of the problems we face. Subjects are covered in more depth at the site linked.

Geo Thermal Heating feedback - driven by temperature and the effects of GHG accumulation - contribution to rise in mean global temperature is minimal as changes occur in geological time scales. After many thousands/millions of years the earth's core temperatures rises to minor significance.

Radiative Forcing Feedback - driven by temperature - as radiative forcing rises much beyond the mean of zero, global heating begins and a slow rise in global temperature is realized. Thermal equilibrium is compromised and the earth enters the heating cycle. - in positive feedback now.

CO2 Absorption Rate Feedback - driven by CO2 concentration - a non temperature related feed back of CO2 concentration with an effect on tropical cloud albedo. Other effects involving absorption, are ocean acidification and the destruction of plankton and reducing emissions of di-methyl-sulfide effecting tropical cloud formation, therefore albedo, and ultimately increased global heating. - in positive feedback now.

CO2 Concentration/Absorption Feedback - driven by temperature and CO2 concentration - as CO2 sinks, (oceans, forests, soils, etc.) become more saturated with CO2, absorption rate diminishes allowing more CO2 to rise and increase concentration in the atmosphere. Also temperature driven, is increased evaporation, fire, and expansion of tetonic plates and volcanic activity - in positive feed back now

Albedo Effect Feedback - driven by temperature - the effect changes the reflection of solar energy back out into space. With less albedo effect more heat is retained at the earth surface realizing higher temperature. Affecting albedo are contrails, aerosols industrial and natural, reflection from land and sea, reflection from vegetation, ice, snow and clouds. As temperature rises the effect of albedo is lessened, leading to more heating, then temperature. - in positive feedback now

Cloud Formation Feedback - driven by temperature - Water Vapor, without it we would not live, with too much of it, we will not live. Water vapor is the 'most dominant greenhouse gas'. It results from the cycle, of cloud formation and precipitation, evaporation from land, plant and water surfaces, then returning to water vapor. With higher temperature, more evaporation forms more atmospheric water vapor, then releases heat into the atmosphere during cloud formation, as well as increasing the greenhouse effect; leading to global heating and higher temperature. Basically, higher temperature, changes the 'balance' between surface water and atmospheric water. - in positive feedback now.

** Within both cloud formation and density, and evaporation feedbacks, is the potential to find negative feedback or damping mechanisms through increased albedo, however this has not been demonstrated in studies to date.

Evaporation Feedback - driven by temperature - higher temperatures increase evaporation, leading to higher density water vapor, increasing the greenhouse effect and global heating. Again it is noted, increases in albedo resulting from increased water vapor density, have not been shown in studies to dampen the heating effect enough to result in negative feedback, or cooling. -- Awaiting further studies in this area, increased evaporation from higher temperatures appear to be acting in positive feedback.

Methane Emission Feedback - driven by temperature - methane emissions result from human activity, plant and animal sources, bacterial activity, and are released from sinks in the thawing parts of the ocean, permafrost, etc. The emissions rising into the atmosphere increase the existing concentrations. Methane potency as a greenhouse gas is thought to be about 24 times that of CO2. It is transformed through molecular breakdown by average between eight and twelve years, depending on altitude and latitude. For the most part, it becomes water vapor and CO2, so the effect of methane lingers beyond its early potency once transformed, for many centuries. Methane has a delayed effect in that it later increases the CO2 concentrations, causing global heating, rising temperatures that liberate more methane from various sinks. The quantity of sink stored methane is staggering, compared to present anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Only a fraction of stored methane would tip the climate into heating most species would not survive.

The melting of ocean hydrates and permafrost are irreversible in human time frames.

~~ end of Meridian Programme 2006, sourcing ~~

In Summary -

That we are already seeing sizable portions of Alaska and Siberia permafrost failing and releasing methane, is ominous. Further, reading of arctic hydrates beginning the thaw and releasing methane adds weight to fears, we have already entered into an irreversible process of frozen land and water based carbon sink failure.

As well it should be noted, the present figures indicating low ocean temperature rise in the Arctic, are being masked by the process of the melt. Temperatures will rise much faster when the sea ice melt is mostly finished, 3-5 years at best. Then the ocean hydrates of methane will equally increase rates of seepage.

The next question will be the mixing of increased surface water temperatures by the currents into different levels of the ocean, and what effect that will have in different locations. Those secondary feedback loops at present are completely unpredictable; plankton, di-methel-sulfide, hydrates, currents in chaos throughout the major oceans? The possibilities are endless.

Methane is the genie that can't be put back in the bottle. All appearances are, we have tipped, and with all of the above listed feedbacks now in play reinforcing each other, this next 15 years will give the indication, of how fast the heat will rise and how long we will be able to adapt.