Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

I entirely agree and that is the point I have been making - whatever the scientists say, we can all see what is wrong and we can all do something to stop making that junkyard worse. 

 


debbook wrote:

Global warming is a big debate among scientists, no clear answers, to date.... but I do believe we have to do everything we can to prevent pollutants into the air, and on the earth,  no matter what.

 

 

I agree with you Kathy. Regardless of the causes, even if all the changes are natural part of the earth's cycle, there is no reason to treat our planet like a junkyard.


 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

No ice cubes melting maybe but ice caps are and polar bears are being affected by this, whether it is caused by global warming or not:smileysad::smileysad:.

 

 


Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate


Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Good farmland with no-one to farm it because they have all been swept away or drowned, together with what animals were there who cannot survive in warmer climates.  It is all very well being blase about areas under threat which do not concern us personally but the livelihoods of many poor people who cannot afford to emigrate elsewhere are at risk in such places.  You have said that your island is under threat of flood but you can afford to move - tens of thousands of people throughout the world are not so lucky:smileysad:.      

 

 


Everyman wrote:

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 


 

Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate


Everyman wrote:

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 


Permafrost. Not under, the ground it self in areas. So buildings on top, permafrost melts and foundations gone. Melted.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

But if the permafrost melts, what do we have then?  One definition seems to be that permafrost is merely normal soil which has frozen.  If it unfreezes, do we just have normal soil?  If so, people have been building on that for millenia.  Those particular buildings may need to be shored up, or their foundations replaced, in the same way as  buildings built on landfill that liquifies need to be rebuilt or their foundations replaced, but it's not as though the land will swallow up the buildings like quicksand, unless the particular area of permafrost in question was originally quicksand.   And if she soil warms and is unfrozen, it may be much more fertile and conducive to human habitation than it is now. 

 

We need to distinguish between change and disaster.   The landforms we live on are always changing.  Earthquakes destroy roads and buildings, floods and tsunamis wash away whole towns, volcanos carve swaths of desolation, but life, both human and otherwise, always returns.  (Volcanic soil is in fact some of the most fertile in the Mediterranean basin, and the Nile floods were what kept Egypt and the Nile Delta fertile, fertility which has been diminishing since the building of the Aswan High Dam.)  But the nature of nature is for species, and humans in particular, to overcome these changes.  

 

If the permafrost melts, I have no doubt that it will bring some damage with it, but I also have no doubt that it will open up new opportunities for living which are now impossible.


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 


Permafrost. Not under, the ground it self in areas. So buildings on top, permafrost melts and foundations gone. Melted.

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

You misunderstand the nature of permafrost, and of global warming.   At most a miniscule portion of the human race willbe "swept away or drowned" by the melting of the permafrost or by global warming, should it even occur.  Generally, global warming is an overall benefit to plant and animal life; it's global cooling, the coming of the ice ages (and one will undoubtely return at some point) that are more destructive of life.  During a warm interglacial period the dinosaurs were able to roam much of hte earth, including the Arctic and areas that are now permafrost (beneath which lie vast reservoirs of oil which are the remains of animals and plants which once flourished in the polar region).  But when the glaciers covered much of North America and Europe, and it was not until they withdrew that humans hotfooted it to England and were able to settle the area where you now enjoy gardening instead of having to chip at glacial ice hundreds of feet thick.

 

Humans are always on the move.  The earth we live on has always been a restless earth, and it 's not going to stop being that because we have some sort of concept that we are entitled to live in a troubleless world where everything is frozen in place, as it were, and will be as it is now forever.  It's a fantasy, and we need to grow up.


Choisya wrote:

Good farmland with no-one to farm it because they have all been swept away or drowned, together with what animals were there who cannot survive in warmer climates.  It is all very well being blase about areas under threat which do not concern us personally but the livelihoods of many poor people who cannot afford to emigrate elsewhere are at risk in such places.  You have said that your island is under threat of flood but you can afford to move - tens of thousands of people throughout the world are not so lucky:smileysad:.      

 

 


Everyman wrote:

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 


 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

[ Edited ]

I do not think it is at all realistic to go back to the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth!  There have been mini ice ages and mini global warmings in between and various shifts in population but nothing as drastic as we are seeing now.  Floods, such as the one caused by a major tsunami 7000 years ago displaced more people than recorded ice ages.  Many cultures have recorded Noah's flood type stories but none have recorded ice ages. It could be that the size of the world's population alone, and human activities which generate a lot of heat, such as the destructdion of the rain forests, the use of fossil fuels, electricity etc. will prevent another ice age and instead promote severe flooding without tsunamis. Flooding is taking place in many parts of the world and tens of thousands of people are already affected.   Comparing our climate with that of the dinosaurs does not take into consideration all that humankind has done or invented since those times.     

 

The earth we live on has been and is a restless earth but vastly increased populations and their careless use of the earth has significantly changed the dynamic.  When dinasaurs roamed the earth there were very few people, if any, and they lived very unsophisticated lives, consuming very little and adding little to global warming. That is patently not the case today and it is a fantasy to think otherwise.    

 


Everyman wrote:

You misunderstand the nature of permafrost, and of global warming.   At most a miniscule portion of the human race willbe "swept away or drowned" by the melting of the permafrost or by global warming, should it even occur.  Generally, global warming is an overall benefit to plant and animal life; it's global cooling, the coming of the ice ages (and one will undoubtely return at some point) that are more destructive of life.  During a warm interglacial period the dinosaurs were able to roam much of hte earth, including the Arctic and areas that are now permafrost (beneath which lie vast reservoirs of oil which are the remains of animals and plants which once flourished in the polar region).  But when the glaciers covered much of North America and Europe, and it was not until they withdrew that humans hotfooted it to England and were able to settle the area where you now enjoy gardening instead of having to chip at glacial ice hundreds of feet thick.

 

Humans are always on the move.  The earth we live on has always been a restless earth, and it 's not going to stop being that because we have some sort of concept that we are entitled to live in a troubleless world where everything is frozen in place, as it were, and will be as it is now forever.  It's a fantasy, and we need to grow up.


Choisya wrote:

Good farmland with no-one to farm it because they have all been swept away or drowned, together with what animals were there who cannot survive in warmer climates.  It is all very well being blase about areas under threat which do not concern us personally but the livelihoods of many poor people who cannot afford to emigrate elsewhere are at risk in such places.  You have said that your island is under threat of flood but you can afford to move - tens of thousands of people throughout the world are not so lucky:smileysad:.      

 

 


Everyman wrote:

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-10-2008 01:31 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

The earth we live on has been and is a restless earth but vastly increased populations and their careless use of the earth has significantly changed the dynamic.

 

Changed, yes.  Significantly, I disagree.  And after all, every species and every act of every species and of nature changes the planet in some way.  

 

There is some sort of idea out there that we deserve to live forever in a globe frozen in this exact moment.  It's absurd, but it's out there. 

 

One major volcanic eruption or one major comet strike will throw vast amounts of dust into the atmosphere and drawf every "global warming" effect man has produced in the past hundred years.  Our effect on the planet is negligible in the long run.   We assign far too much importance to the things we do.

 


Choisya wrote:

I do not think it is at all realistic to go back to the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth!  There have been mini ice ages and mini global warmings in between and various shifts in population but nothing as drastic as we are seeing now.  Floods, such as the one caused by a major tsunami 7000 years ago displaced more people than recorded ice ages.  Many cultures have recorded Noah's flood type stories but none have recorded ice ages. It could be that the size of the world's population alone, and human activities which generate a lot of heat, such as the destructdion of the rain forests, the use of fossil fuels, electricity etc. will prevent another ice age and instead promote severe flooding without tsunamis. Flooding is taking place in many parts of the world and tens of thousands of people are already affected.   Comparing our climate with that of the dinosaurs does not take into consideration all that humankind has done or invented since those times.     

 

The earth we live on has been and is a restless earth but vastly increased populations and their careless use of the earth has significantly changed the dynamic.  When dinasaurs roamed the earth there were very few people, if any, and they lived very unsophisticated lives, consuming very little and adding little to global warming. That is patently not the case today and it is a fantasy to think otherwise.    

 


Everyman wrote:

You misunderstand the nature of permafrost, and of global warming.   At most a miniscule portion of the human race willbe "swept away or drowned" by the melting of the permafrost or by global warming, should it even occur.  Generally, global warming is an overall benefit to plant and animal life; it's global cooling, the coming of the ice ages (and one will undoubtely return at some point) that are more destructive of life.  During a warm interglacial period the dinosaurs were able to roam much of hte earth, including the Arctic and areas that are now permafrost (beneath which lie vast reservoirs of oil which are the remains of animals and plants which once flourished in the polar region).  But when the glaciers covered much of North America and Europe, and it was not until they withdrew that humans hotfooted it to England and were able to settle the area where you now enjoy gardening instead of having to chip at glacial ice hundreds of feet thick.

 

Humans are always on the move.  The earth we live on has always been a restless earth, and it 's not going to stop being that because we have some sort of concept that we are entitled to live in a troubleless world where everything is frozen in place, as it were, and will be as it is now forever.  It's a fantasy, and we need to grow up.


Choisya wrote:

Good farmland with no-one to farm it because they have all been swept away or drowned, together with what animals were there who cannot survive in warmer climates.  It is all very well being blase about areas under threat which do not concern us personally but the livelihoods of many poor people who cannot afford to emigrate elsewhere are at risk in such places.  You have said that your island is under threat of flood but you can afford to move - tens of thousands of people throughout the world are not so lucky:smileysad:.      

 

 


Everyman wrote:

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-10-2008 01:31 PM

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

I do not think it is at all realistic to go back to the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth!

 

The dinosaurs are unlikely to come back.  The climate in which they thrived is.


Choisya wrote:

I do not think it is at all realistic to go back to the time when dinosaurs roamed the earth!  There have been mini ice ages and mini global warmings in between and various shifts in population but nothing as drastic as we are seeing now.  Floods, such as the one caused by a major tsunami 7000 years ago displaced more people than recorded ice ages.  Many cultures have recorded Noah's flood type stories but none have recorded ice ages. It could be that the size of the world's population alone, and human activities which generate a lot of heat, such as the destructdion of the rain forests, the use of fossil fuels, electricity etc. will prevent another ice age and instead promote severe flooding without tsunamis. Flooding is taking place in many parts of the world and tens of thousands of people are already affected.   Comparing our climate with that of the dinosaurs does not take into consideration all that humankind has done or invented since those times.     

 

The earth we live on has been and is a restless earth but vastly increased populations and their careless use of the earth has significantly changed the dynamic.  When dinasaurs roamed the earth there were very few people, if any, and they lived very unsophisticated lives, consuming very little and adding little to global warming. That is patently not the case today and it is a fantasy to think otherwise.    

 


Everyman wrote:

You misunderstand the nature of permafrost, and of global warming.   At most a miniscule portion of the human race willbe "swept away or drowned" by the melting of the permafrost or by global warming, should it even occur.  Generally, global warming is an overall benefit to plant and animal life; it's global cooling, the coming of the ice ages (and one will undoubtely return at some point) that are more destructive of life.  During a warm interglacial period the dinosaurs were able to roam much of hte earth, including the Arctic and areas that are now permafrost (beneath which lie vast reservoirs of oil which are the remains of animals and plants which once flourished in the polar region).  But when the glaciers covered much of North America and Europe, and it was not until they withdrew that humans hotfooted it to England and were able to settle the area where you now enjoy gardening instead of having to chip at glacial ice hundreds of feet thick.

 

Humans are always on the move.  The earth we live on has always been a restless earth, and it 's not going to stop being that because we have some sort of concept that we are entitled to live in a troubleless world where everything is frozen in place, as it were, and will be as it is now forever.  It's a fantasy, and we need to grow up.


Choisya wrote:

Good farmland with no-one to farm it because they have all been swept away or drowned, together with what animals were there who cannot survive in warmer climates.  It is all very well being blase about areas under threat which do not concern us personally but the livelihoods of many poor people who cannot afford to emigrate elsewhere are at risk in such places.  You have said that your island is under threat of flood but you can afford to move - tens of thousands of people throughout the world are not so lucky:smileysad:.      

 

 


Everyman wrote:

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-10-2008 01:31 PM

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate


Everyman wrote:

You misunderstand the nature of permafrost, and of global warming.   At most a miniscule portion of the human race willbe "swept away or drowned" by the melting of the permafrost or by global warming, should it even occur.  Generally, global warming is an overall benefit to plant and animal life; it's global cooling, the coming of the ice ages (and one will undoubtely return at some point) that are more destructive of life.  During a warm interglacial period the dinosaurs were able to roam much of hte earth, including the Arctic and areas that are now permafrost (beneath which lie vast reservoirs of oil which are the remains of animals and plants which once flourished in the polar region).  But when the glaciers covered much of North America and Europe, and it was not until they withdrew that humans hotfooted it to England and were able to settle the area where you now enjoy gardening instead of having to chip at glacial ice hundreds of feet thick.

 

Humans are always on the move.  The earth we live on has always been a restless earth, and it 's not going to stop being that because we have some sort of concept that we are entitled to live in a troubleless world where everything is frozen in place, as it were, and will be as it is now forever.  It's a fantasy, and we need to grow up.


Choisya wrote:

Good farmland with no-one to farm it because they have all been swept away or drowned, together with what animals were there who cannot survive in warmer climates.  It is all very well being blase about areas under threat which do not concern us personally but the livelihoods of many poor people who cannot afford to emigrate elsewhere are at risk in such places.  You have said that your island is under threat of flood but you can afford to move - tens of thousands of people throughout the world are not so lucky:smileysad:.      

 

 


Everyman wrote:

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 


 


 

 


Perhaps you need to check your geology before you decide any misunderstanding. Permafrost is not a few inches deep in most areas. Were talking feet thickness. When the backside of your house drops 4 feet in the course of the month, shoring up just does not cover it. Some areas as much as 12 feet have melted away.

 

When something that might melt a few inches in the summer here and there, then refreeze. Over the course of millennia consistent and unchanging. Yet a 3 year resent change?! I think it's a red flag.

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

When something that might melt a few inches in the summer here and there, then refreeze. Over the course of millennia consistent and unchanging. Yet a 3 year resent change?! I think it's a red flag.

 

As I understand the situation, that's not the case.  First of all, we don't know how much melted even a few hundred years ago because there were no humans there, and we can't get that detail of information from core samples.

 

Over the course of milennia there have been periods of no permafrost at all.   100% melted.  Then it returns with a vengeance, and when the glaciers covered Alaska hundreds of feet thick, there would have been no melting at all.

 

Certainly for those people living in homes built on permafrost it's a major issue, I don't question that at all.   But humans have built in many areas that eventually turned out not to be stable building sites, so in the overall scheme of human development, this is not an unusual situation for humans to face.  

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:

You misunderstand the nature of permafrost, and of global warming.   At most a miniscule portion of the human race willbe "swept away or drowned" by the melting of the permafrost or by global warming, should it even occur.  Generally, global warming is an overall benefit to plant and animal life; it's global cooling, the coming of the ice ages (and one will undoubtely return at some point) that are more destructive of life.  During a warm interglacial period the dinosaurs were able to roam much of hte earth, including the Arctic and areas that are now permafrost (beneath which lie vast reservoirs of oil which are the remains of animals and plants which once flourished in the polar region).  But when the glaciers covered much of North America and Europe, and it was not until they withdrew that humans hotfooted it to England and were able to settle the area where you now enjoy gardening instead of having to chip at glacial ice hundreds of feet thick.

 

Humans are always on the move.  The earth we live on has always been a restless earth, and it 's not going to stop being that because we have some sort of concept that we are entitled to live in a troubleless world where everything is frozen in place, as it were, and will be as it is now forever.  It's a fantasy, and we need to grow up.


Choisya wrote:

Good farmland with no-one to farm it because they have all been swept away or drowned, together with what animals were there who cannot survive in warmer climates.  It is all very well being blase about areas under threat which do not concern us personally but the livelihoods of many poor people who cannot afford to emigrate elsewhere are at risk in such places.  You have said that your island is under threat of flood but you can afford to move - tens of thousands of people throughout the world are not so lucky:smileysad:.      

 

 


Everyman wrote:

What is under the permafrost?  Good farmland perhaps?   Some time ago, Alaska was a land of forests, dinosaurs, lots of wildlife and rich vegetation.  Not a bad place to live, perhaps? 

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:
Alaska could use a little global warming.   No icecubes melting there!

Take a look at the articles a couple of years back on Alaska realistate problems due to the permafrost melting. Permafrost that last significantly melted just after the last ice age. Now crumbling due to modern warming. Whole towns falling down.


 

 


 


 

 


Perhaps you need to check your geology before you decide any misunderstanding. Permafrost is not a few inches deep in most areas. Were talking feet thickness. When the backside of your house drops 4 feet in the course of the month, shoring up just does not cover it. Some areas as much as 12 feet have melted away.

 

When something that might melt a few inches in the summer here and there, then refreeze. Over the course of millennia consistent and unchanging. Yet a 3 year resent change?! I think it's a red flag.


 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

I recently linked to the report on Alaska's cold October.  Now Idaho is also feeling this non-warming: the earliest snowfall ever recorded, with records going back over 100 years.   Read it here.

 

And Washington State got snow in the mountains already:  here's one link.  

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

I sure wish we'd get some early snow here in NYC :smileysad:

 

 

________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Head for Montana.  It's snowing in Billings, and they already have 20 inches down, according to Accuweather. 

 

Your temps seem pretty close to normal.   I doubt you should look for snow this time of year; your record low temp for this dae is 34, which isn't cold enough to do much snow damage.  And doesn't look like any snow coming anytime soon; looks like for the next two weeks at least your low temps won't even get into the high 30s.  

 


Jon_B wrote:

I sure wish we'd get some early snow here in NYC :smileysad:

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Correspondent
Maria_H
Posts: 791
Registered: ‎07-19-2007
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Good grief!  Please no! 

 

Don't hate on fall.

 


Jon_B wrote:

I sure wish we'd get some early snow here in NYC :smileysad: 


 

 



Looking for a discussion? Find a Book Club for all your interests!


Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Biodiversity is greater in warmer climate areas, saysthis article.  And whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, yuou belive or accept that human life started in a tropical climate.

 

So what?  Well, the implication is that the, assuing global waring is real, the warmer the globe gets, the more biodiversity that will emerge over time.  If a warmer climate were to kill off a few arctic species, such as the polar bar (and this is by no means agreed on), it is equally likely to replace it with a bunch of news species which, without the global warming, would never have had the chance to come into existence.  If global warming forces some specie, such as coral, to migrate toward the poles, new species, and perhaps more of them, will emerge to replace them.  

 

If the seas rise (and keep in mind that this can only happen by the melting of land-based glaciers; the melting of the polar ice cap will do nothing to change sea level, any more than a melting ice cube raises the level of water in a glass of water), that will create new inter-tidal areas where new species will have an opportunity to arise and flourish.

 

It could even be argued that, far from being a disaster for the globe as a whole, global warming could be a boon to life on earth.   So fire up those gas guzzlers, folks; you're the true environmentalists!

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

On the other hand.

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Biodiversity is greater in warmer climate areas, saysthis article.  And whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, yuou belive or accept that human life started in a tropical climate.

 

So what?  Well, the implication is that the, assuing global waring is real, the warmer the globe gets, the more biodiversity that will emerge over time.  If a warmer climate were to kill off a few arctic species, such as the polar bar (and this is by no means agreed on), it is equally likely to replace it with a bunch of news species which, without the global warming, would never have had the chance to come into existence.  If global warming forces some specie, such as coral, to migrate toward the poles, new species, and perhaps more of them, will emerge to replace them.  

 

If the seas rise (and keep in mind that this can only happen by the melting of land-based glaciers; the melting of the polar ice cap will do nothing to change sea level, any more than a melting ice cube raises the level of water in a glass of water), that will create new inter-tidal areas where new species will have an opportunity to arise and flourish.

 

It could even be argued that, far from being a disaster for the globe as a whole, global warming could be a boon to life on earth.   So fire up those gas guzzlers, folks; you're the true environmentalists!