Read this article about coastal erosion in the Arctic that is attributed to permafrost thaw. It shows that erosion rates in arctic coasts have increased 80-160% in a relatively short period of time: arctic.noaa.gov/report-card/report-card-2020/coastal-permafrost-erosion/
@alfonsedente9679 try thinking for a bit. This coastline has a cliff and there's a house on the edge of the cliff. No reasonable homeowner would locate a home in such a precarious spot so obviously the cliff is a new feature of the land.
I assure you that shack has not been there for hundreds of years. I dont think people have been living in it either as the ice has melted away over the years.
As Permafrost thaws, we should pro-actively "seed" these areas. The hardiest plants would be suitable, and they will probably be weeds. As long as they survive and hold the ground together, it does not matter whether they are "native" to the area. That blanket of biomass may prevent mass emission of methanol/ethanol and other unwanted gases.
I'm not sure about using non-native species, as this 'might' affect other local species, especially if one or more introduced non-natives suddenly became invasive (without their natural checks in their countries of origin). But I do think planting these areas up with something should be done. However, planting will only take up the carbon load of current generations, and the amount of gases being emitted by thawing permafrost represent hundreds, thousands of generations of plants. I'm wondering if certain plants are better than others at having a blanketing effect over the ground (in that paler or shiny foliage plants reflect light/heat back better than something like a dark foliaged tree. I've always noticed that in the pine plantation near where I live, it's always a couple of degrees cooler than the nearby broadleaf woodland. I suppose because the sunlight has more chance of touching the woodland floor and warming it. But would a paler strain of pine have made the plantation cooler still? Also, would it be wise to investigate the insulating effects of different mosses? Some are thin, barely more than an inch or two thickness, while others form dense cushions at least a foot thick. I think we have a lot of discovery still ahead of us, very little time for research, insufficient money for that research, and the perennial problem of governments that can only think in terms of 'quick fix' and 'technological' changes. Additionally, if planting solutions were found to be effective (whether reflective or insulating or just plants to absorb carbon quickly), who carries out the work? Who pays for that work to be done - considering how many people are struggling to afford to pay their bills right now, it would be unfair for governments to pay by increasing taxes? How do we convince badly affected countries like Russia, which has a mighty permafrost area, but has a government that doesn't recognise the value in conservation work? Whenever ideas are put forward, there are always uncomfortable reasons why they cannot be so easily accomplished. Money, workers, logistics, politics. I'm thinking we will have to be mercenary - to research plants that provide the most uses, that make money. For instance: biofuels, medicines, food, coppicing for soil building & garden products, timber, eyes, crafts. If we could make sure that a minimum percentage planted had the potential to be farmed for a profit, that would make reforesting more palatable to governments. They would be investing for a profitable future and job creation. But such projects are long term, so not all governments want to see the fruits of their labours being celebrated by a new administration. That's half the reason why governments are heavily into quick fix ideas, they know they will give the hoped for result immediately. I know it's nicer if we could leave new tree plantings to go wild and look after themselves. But with so very many people in the world, and the population still rising, there has to be working opportunities for everyone. Forests and woodlands will have to pay their way, like it or not.
I get sick of the "carbon" thumping that goes on regarding any and every change in environment. Ice melts and so does permafrost. This is not new. this will freeze over and permafrost will be created once again. As to building a home on the edge, so what? People build homes right on the cliff edge of a coastline or right on a beach. It is their choice.
Discussing the fact that permafrost holds and releases carbon is not "carbon thumping' its a reality of the situation and the science. Permafrost does not just simply freeze again, and the rate at which it is thawing actually is 'new' when thinking about human timescales, as it's thawing at an accelerating rate. Most of it was formed thousands of years ago during the last ice age. It doesn't come back because of 1-2 cold winters. There are more consequences than homes on cliffs. The impact is being felt inland as well, as the ground subsides and infrastructure is damaged, and if your family/community has lived somewhere for generations, picking up and moving is not an easy thing to do.
Maybe you should spend more time listening and less time guessing. The cliffs are a new feature on the land. They didn't exist prior to the extreme heating of the Arctic.
I understand the human perspective but on a planetary time line permafrost is just another changing landscape. Whether caused by humans or not it was never going to last. Honestly building a culture on something as rapidly changing as ice on a changing planet seems….. well you get what I’m saying.
Happy New Year David! Congratulations on hitting over 3,000 subs!
Happy New Year! Thanks for all your support!
Informative. Thanks David, move over David Attenborough.... Happy New Year.
Happy New Year! Thanks for watching!
nice presentation Doctor.
Keep Going
Appreciate it!
2:56 I didn't know that youtube supported resolutions under 144p.
Good content though.
Permafrost made me build a house on the edge of a cliff.
DAM U PERMAFROST!!!!
You do know that the cliff didn't exist when the house was built?
@sentientflower7891 proof?
Read this article about coastal erosion in the Arctic that is attributed to permafrost thaw. It shows that erosion rates in arctic coasts have increased 80-160% in a relatively short period of time: arctic.noaa.gov/report-card/report-card-2020/coastal-permafrost-erosion/
@alfonsedente9679 try thinking for a bit. This coastline has a cliff and there's a house on the edge of the cliff. No reasonable homeowner would locate a home in such a precarious spot so obviously the cliff is a new feature of the land.
I assure you that shack has not been there for hundreds of years. I dont think people have been living in it either as the ice has melted away over the years.
As Permafrost thaws, we should pro-actively "seed" these areas. The hardiest plants would be suitable, and they will probably be weeds. As long as they survive and hold the ground together, it does not matter whether they are "native" to the area. That blanket of biomass may prevent mass emission of methanol/ethanol and other unwanted gases.
I'm not sure about using non-native species, as this 'might' affect other local species, especially if one or more introduced non-natives suddenly became invasive (without their natural checks in their countries of origin).
But I do think planting these areas up with something should be done.
However, planting will only take up the carbon load of current generations, and the amount of gases being emitted by thawing permafrost represent hundreds, thousands of generations of plants.
I'm wondering if certain plants are better than others at having a blanketing effect over the ground (in that paler or shiny foliage plants reflect light/heat back better than something like a dark foliaged tree.
I've always noticed that in the pine plantation near where I live, it's always a couple of degrees cooler than the nearby broadleaf woodland. I suppose because the sunlight has more chance of touching the woodland floor and warming it.
But would a paler strain of pine have made the plantation cooler still?
Also, would it be wise to investigate the insulating effects of different mosses? Some are thin, barely more than an inch or two thickness, while others form dense cushions at least a foot thick.
I think we have a lot of discovery still ahead of us, very little time for research, insufficient money for that research, and the perennial problem of governments that can only think in terms of 'quick fix' and 'technological' changes.
Additionally, if planting solutions were found to be effective (whether reflective or insulating or just plants to absorb carbon quickly), who carries out the work?
Who pays for that work to be done - considering how many people are struggling to afford to pay their bills right now, it would be unfair for governments to pay by increasing taxes?
How do we convince badly affected countries like Russia, which has a mighty permafrost area, but has a government that doesn't recognise the value in conservation work?
Whenever ideas are put forward, there are always uncomfortable reasons why they cannot be so easily accomplished.
Money, workers, logistics, politics.
I'm thinking we will have to be mercenary - to research plants that provide the most uses, that make money. For instance: biofuels, medicines, food, coppicing for soil building & garden products, timber, eyes, crafts.
If we could make sure that a minimum percentage planted had the potential to be farmed for a profit, that would make reforesting more palatable to governments. They would be investing for a profitable future and job creation. But such projects are long term, so not all governments want to see the fruits of their labours being celebrated by a new administration. That's half the reason why governments are heavily into quick fix ideas, they know they will give the hoped for result immediately.
I know it's nicer if we could leave new tree plantings to go wild and look after themselves. But with so very many people in the world, and the population still rising, there has to be working opportunities for everyone. Forests and woodlands will have to pay their way, like it or not.
I get sick of the "carbon" thumping that goes on regarding any and every change in environment. Ice melts and so does permafrost. This is not new. this will freeze over and permafrost will be created once again. As to building a home on the edge, so what? People build homes right on the cliff edge of a coastline or right on a beach. It is their choice.
Discussing the fact that permafrost holds and releases carbon is not "carbon thumping' its a reality of the situation and the science. Permafrost does not just simply freeze again, and the rate at which it is thawing actually is 'new' when thinking about human timescales, as it's thawing at an accelerating rate. Most of it was formed thousands of years ago during the last ice age. It doesn't come back because of 1-2 cold winters. There are more consequences than homes on cliffs. The impact is being felt inland as well, as the ground subsides and infrastructure is damaged, and if your family/community has lived somewhere for generations, picking up and moving is not an easy thing to do.
Maybe you should spend more time listening and less time guessing. The cliffs are a new feature on the land. They didn't exist prior to the extreme heating of the Arctic.
I understand the human perspective but on a planetary time line permafrost is just another changing landscape. Whether caused by humans or not it was never going to last. Honestly building a culture on something as rapidly changing as ice on a changing planet seems….. well you get what I’m saying.
Humans won't exist much longer. We know that.
Bunch of bs here
Thunder shook loose hail on the outhouse again.