the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt
August 16, 2005 9:18 PM   Subscribe

the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He says that the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt, and this "has all happened in the last three or four years". wow. have we reached the "tipping point" ?
posted by specialk420 (36 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: double



 
I hate scary stories before bed.

Good Lord.
posted by wakko at 9:31 PM on August 16, 2005


*cough*
posted by evilangela at 9:35 PM on August 16, 2005


Dear Siberia tag,
I've noticed that you've been used twice now on Metafilter - both times for the exact same link, not even the same story on two different websites. I feel bad that people only bother to notice you now that you're dying. It's like in Fight Club when Jack said, "When you're dying people really, really listen to you instead of-" and then Marla said, "Instead of waiting for their turn to speak?" Anyway, I hope you feel better and get over your fever soon.

Love,
--Ryvar
posted by Ryvar at 9:35 PM on August 16, 2005


I just got back from Siberia. Everyone there is bitching about how hot this summer is...
posted by c13 at 9:36 PM on August 16, 2005


Surf Siberia
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:44 PM on August 16, 2005


WE MUST BUY SIBERIA. now's the time to get it off 'em cheap!

quick, before it turns into the next cancun!
posted by spiderwire at 9:59 PM on August 16, 2005


dear Ryvar,

at least i'm not this tag.

xoxo,
metasiberia.
posted by spiderwire at 10:01 PM on August 16, 2005


the entire western Metafilterian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt an "double-posting landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He says that the entire western Metafilterian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt, and this "has all happened in the last three or four posts". wow. have we reached the "tipping point" ?
posted by Lionfire at 10:46 PM on August 16, 2005


Huh, I'm actually leaving for Siberia in about twelve hours. Hope it's still there and everything.

I've been told it (well, the southeast area anyway) hasn't been so hot recently (i.e., it has been bearable), so you never know.
posted by keatsandyeats at 10:59 PM on August 16, 2005


I think the correct term is "dripping point."
posted by wendell at 11:14 PM on August 16, 2005


I know this thread has to die but having just talked to a friend in Tomsk whose father works at an institute investigating the environmental effects of this bog, he says there is no such excitement around there about any large scale environmental effects. He believes this whole story is a ploy to raise the profile of some researchers in an effort to win funding.

You read it here first.
posted by DirtyCreature at 11:23 PM on August 16, 2005


Environments change. Deal with it.
What, you expected the Earth to stay exactly the same way you've known it forever? It's an ever-changing world, and demanding that it remain static is just silly.
posted by nightchrome at 11:46 PM on August 16, 2005


Nightchrome, tell that to the dinosaurs.
posted by Cassford at 12:01 AM on August 17, 2005


Cassford, what's your point?
posted by nightchrome at 12:18 AM on August 17, 2005


He believes this whole story is a ploy to raise the profile of some researchers in an effort to win funding.


Shocking!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:22 AM on August 17, 2005


nightchrome: I think what Cassford's saying is that while, yes, environments change naturally, there are always casulties. There's no putting a towel over your head and not getting eaten.
posted by brundlefly at 12:24 AM on August 17, 2005


So nightchrome, you wouldn't mind if someone burned your house down, right? After all, fires can happen naturally so an anthropogenic fire that destroys your home shouldn't bother you in the least, right?
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:25 AM on August 17, 2005


Shocking!

no, Steve, 'shocking' would be you making a comment that took up more than one line of snarky screen-space. or really, anything that wasn't neocon-batshit-insane, but we don't expect miracles. enjoy your nice, mild winters.
posted by spiderwire at 12:32 AM on August 17, 2005


brundlefly, sure there might be casualties if people don't adapt. What does that have to do with what I said? I said "deal with it", after all.

George_Spiggott, boy that's almost a textbook false analogy right there.

The Earth changes. We adapt, or we don't. Both have consequences. Freaking out over the fact that something is no longer what it used to be does not help anyone.
posted by nightchrome at 12:38 AM on August 17, 2005


nightchrome; unsupported assertions are illogical: it's not enough to say that it's a false analogy, you have to show show that it is a false analogy. You claim that because some kinds of climate change are normal, all climate change, presumably including anthropogenic climate change, is normal and we should just accept it. It is reasonable to compare it to fires, some of which are normal and others anthropogenic. But I will say one thing -- even "natural" fires are worth preventing if they save lives and homes, and we do it all the time. So perhaps the analogy is flawed -- but in the opposite sense that you mean.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:44 AM on August 17, 2005


nightchrome: Well, uh... What are you trying to say, then? Isn't taking preventative action "dealing with it," with apathy being the only alternative?

Or are you taking the position that climate change is not affected by human activity and we're simply along for the ride? I'm just trying to get a handle on your position here.
posted by brundlefly at 12:53 AM on August 17, 2005


George_Spiggott, I didn't say it was normal, I said it happens. The word "normal" doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this context. But I'll go back to your initial post if you prefer. What would I do? I'd deal with it. Am I going to freak out because it's possible someone might set my place on fire? No. Am I going to think it's the end of the world because my place has burned down? No. Am I going to do something about it, so that I can continue to live and prosper? Yes.
So what exactly were you trying to get at?

brundlefly, I have to admit I was posting less about this actual article and more about the slew of "Oh my God the world is ending!" posts that have be showing up lately. Freaking out does not help. Fearmongering does not help. Laying blame does not help (much).
posted by nightchrome at 1:03 AM on August 17, 2005


I understand. There's been a real apocalyptic vibe recently (and not just in posts here). But where does one draw the line between "fearmongering" and pointing out potential threats so that they may be countered?
posted by brundlefly at 1:14 AM on August 17, 2005


brundlefly, usually right before the statement of wild-guess conclusions about what will happen in the future.
bogs in Siberia melting -> ok
probably climate-change related -> ok
bogs contain methane which could contribute to global warming -> ok
--- fearmongering line ---
release of billions of tonnes of methane will fast-track global warming and kill us all -> uh-oh
posted by nightchrome at 1:22 AM on August 17, 2005


Also, for a double-post containing mostly people arguing, this has been a surprisingly long-lived thread.
posted by nightchrome at 1:23 AM on August 17, 2005


nightchrome's wisdom of the day:

Grow gills and stfu.

Thank you.
posted by velacroix at 2:05 AM on August 17, 2005


velacroix, actually that's a fantastic idea.
posted by nightchrome at 2:14 AM on August 17, 2005


apologies for the yet to be chopped down double post ...

The Earth changes. We adapt, or we don't. Both have consequences.

you sound just likethe collective bunch of death cult/jesus is coming clownies running the show in washington dc.

the earth changes - ummmm... no. WE are changing the earth ....

is global warming like genocide - we can stop it if we make a collective choice do so? - or we can continue in our own selfish perilous ways to the potentially catastrophic detriment of the next generation..

sad.
posted by specialk420 at 5:57 AM on August 17, 2005


There's no putting a towel over your head and not getting eaten.

This is not true. I've put a towel over my head and not gotten eaten. More than once.
posted by languagehat at 6:32 AM on August 17, 2005


The front page of New Siberia has a cartoon of a man taking a very pleased-looking sheep to the gynecologist.

No, it probably doesn't have anything to do with global warming, but I thought you'd want to know.
posted by languagehat at 6:38 AM on August 17, 2005


Inquiring minds want to know how this change will impact the gulags. Will they still be miserably cold enough? Will they be more like the gulag Club Gitmo?
posted by nofundy at 6:47 AM on August 17, 2005


No, languagehat, what you've done is not gotten eaten with a towel over your head.
posted by papercake at 6:59 AM on August 17, 2005


Just a thought. Not even an original one.

Environmentalism isn't about saving the rainforests and it's not about saving the spotted owl, and it's not about saving the planet.

It's about saving Humanity.

I've wondered, since I first heard about it, why it's never painted that way.

The dinosaurs? It was their time. Rodents survived. Humans? One day, if we're not careful, it'll be our time. But the planet? Barring a massive series of thermonuclear detonations, the planet will be fine. Many species will die off, but how much do you really care about the platypus (except for the humor value...)

I really believe that if the Environmental lobby couched it as "ok, the planet will survive, but Humans aren't designed to deal with the strain we're putting on the environment, so we should find ways to make it financially attractive to ecoscape the earth to make it habitable and friendly to us" we'd do a hell of a lot better at "Saving the planet."

Appeal to self interest. It's a pretty great driver.

Of course, because the Earth is a hugely complex system that we haven't got any ability to predict or accurately map, well, we may be screwed no matter what we do.
posted by swerdloff at 8:14 AM on August 17, 2005


Barring a massive series of thermonuclear detonations, the planet will be fine.

Actually, the planet will be fine in that case too. A few humans would probably survive too.

Environmentalism isn't about saving the rainforests and it's not about saving the spotted owl, and it's not about saving the planet. It's about saving Humanity.

I don't think that's quite right either. It's a long-term economic problem, and developing the technology to deal with these problems is a fantastic opportunity. A hundred billion dollars towards developing efficient solar power would be a fantastic investment in the future.

It's unfortunate that the Republicans have no interest in alternative power sources (hydrogen is a storage medium akin to a rechargeable battery, not a power source), and that the democrats efforts (the Million Solar Roofs Initiative comes to mind) have been feeble.
posted by mosch at 8:44 AM on August 17, 2005


Environmentalism isn't about saving the rainforests and it's not about saving the spotted owl, and it's not about saving the planet. It's about saving Humanity.

Based on our current level of understanding and capability, "the environment" is a rather large black box. Or rather an immense set of them. We don't know how many we can lose and still preserve the one we call "humanity", so even if environmentalism is only about protecting humanity (and I'm not convinced that it is), that's a hard thing to do considering we don't have the know-how to create any other kind of self-sustaining environment. Time has wrought a system that works. We're best off trying to maintain it.

There's also nothing wrong with saying that environmentalism is about "saving" anything aside from humans. Clearly we're in it for ourselves. But saying that any given species' "time is up", especially when we have something to do with its demise, is like saying that this tree's time is up... because I'm about to chop it down. We can choose (perhaps ineffectually) to save ourselves. We can also choose to save a forest or a species of owl or anything else we damn well please. Because we think it integral, because we like it, or because we can.

I'm tired of concrete-dwellers telling the rest of us that that big room with the blue ceiling isn't worth anything on its own.
posted by dreamsign at 8:54 AM on August 17, 2005


cool. it should be a helluva lot easier to drill for oil up there now!
posted by slogger at 9:07 AM on August 17, 2005


« Older Thats a big freakin tattoo   |   Orwellian Olympics Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments