[lisper]

I'm not sure "beauty" is the word I would have chosen.

But it's really important to emphasize this: by the time things get bad enough to really notice, it will be far too late to stop them from getting much, much worse. Once the permafrost starts to melt and release it's methane, it's game over (and that process has already begun).

[peteradio]

> Once the permafrost starts to melt and release it's methane, it's game over (and that process has already begun).

Sources?

[lisper]

https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/permafrost

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-o...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/driven-by-climate-chang...

"Under the surface, something else is active – and it is amplifying global warming. When the ground thaws, microbes begin feasting on organic matter in soils that have been frozen for millennia.

These microbes release carbon dioxide and methane, potent greenhouse gases. As those gases escape into the atmosphere, they further warm the climate, creating a feedback loop: Warmer temperatures thaw more soil, releasing more organic material for microbes to feast on and produce more greenhouse gases."

[akira2501]

> carbon dioxide and methane, potent greenhouse gases

They're actually the least potent. They have GWPs of 1 and 20, respectively. Meanwhile Nitrous Oxide has 300 and CFCs have above 5000.

> they further warm the climate, creating a feedback loop

Possibly creating a feedback loop according to limited computer models focusing strictly on local conditions and explicitly ignoring global ones.

[lisper]

> They're actually the least potent.

Doesn't much matter when we are releasing them by the gigaton.

> Possibly creating a feedback loop according to limited computer models focusing strictly on local conditions and explicitly ignoring global ones.

You don't need computer models to see that warming -> melting permafrost -> more methane -> more warming -> more melting permafrost -> more methane...

[akira2501]

> Doesn't much matter when we are releasing them by the gigaton.

Are the arctic soils expected to release that amount?

> You don't need computer models to see that warming -> melting permafrost -> more methane -> more warming -> more melting permafrost -> more methane...

So, you don't see the need for any sort of scientific method, particularly when engaging in planet scale engineering? It's the same as the article, attempting to find the correct "emotional plea" in lieu of any actual work.

[lisper]

Computer models are not necessary to do science. Isaac Newton managed perfectly well without them. Just because an analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative doesn't make it unscientific.

Another reference:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ticking-timebomb-s...

[peteradio]

I'm not see game over.

[lisper]

Seriously? Do I really need to explain positive feedback to you?

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

[soco]

This reminds me of the usual argument with the deniers: they ask you for proof, for scientific proof, for better scientific proof, refuse them all, and when you are fed up and ask them in turn for their proof, they come up with a youtube video of some sarcastic guy.

[lisper]

Yes. Young earth creationists employ the same tactics.