The Permafrost is melting fast in the Yukon, what are we going to do?

The logic in this argument contains several inaccuracies and misleading claims about global warming:
Your reply was lacking of any personal knowledge of earth science, just admiration for a hypocrite elite that doesn't and has never lived what he preaches. He claims to be carbon neutral. What a hoot and big lie!

Fact: He lives in a 10,000 square foot house that uses the GRID electricity that would power over twenty 1500 sq ft houses.

Fact: The electricity used just to heat Gore's swimming pool for a year, would power six 1500 sq ft houses for a year.

Fact: He raises angus beef cattle and his family has for years.

Fact: He flies or did fly frequently, claiming his self proclaimed carbon neutral lifestyle offset his impact flying.

He has never even come close to a carbon neutral lifestyle.
 

Last edited:
I can offer scientific references that strongly support the reality of human-caused climate change, regardless of any individual's personal actions:

Scientific Consensus​

The scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is overwhelming:
  1. A 2019 review of scientific papers found 100% consensus on the cause of climate change
    2
    .
  2. A 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change
    2
    .
  3. 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change
    4
    .

Evidence from Multiple Sources​

The evidence for global warming comes from various scientific disciplines:
  1. Ice cores from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth's climate is warming
    9
    .
  2. Satellite and instrumental records provide unequivocal evidence of warming
    9
    .
  3. Global average CO2 concentrations reached 414.4 parts per million in 2021, the highest level in roughly 2 million years
    1
    .

Recent Observations​

Recent data further supports the warming trend:
  1. 2023 was the warmest year on record since 1850, by a wide margin
    7
    .
  2. The 10 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred in the past decade (2014-2023)
    7
    .
  3. 2024 is set to be the first year to breach the 1.5°C global warming limit across an entire calendar year
    1
    .

Attribution to Human Activities​

Studies consistently attribute the observed warming to human activities:
  1. Approximately 90% of carbon dioxide emissions come from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes
    3
    .
  2. 92% of 2023's record-shattering heat was caused by humans
    5
    .
  3. The human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible" by the scientific community
    2
    .
These scientific findings, based on extensive research and data from multiple sources, provide robust evidence for human-caused global warming, independent of any individual's personal actions or lifestyle.
 
I can offer scientific references that strongly support the reality of human-caused climate change, regardless of any individual's personal actions:

Scientific Consensus​

The scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is overwhelming:
  1. A 2019 review of scientific papers found 100% consensus on the cause of climate change
    2
    .
  2. A 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change
    2
    .
  3. 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change
    4
    .

Evidence from Multiple Sources​

The evidence for global warming comes from various scientific disciplines:
  1. Ice cores from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth's climate is warming
    9
    .
  2. Satellite and instrumental records provide unequivocal evidence of warming
    9
    .
  3. Global average CO2 concentrations reached 414.4 parts per million in 2021, the highest level in roughly 2 million years
    1
    .

Recent Observations​

Recent data further supports the warming trend:
  1. 2023 was the warmest year on record since 1850, by a wide margin
    7
    .
  2. The 10 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred in the past decade (2014-2023)
    7
    .
  3. 2024 is set to be the first year to breach the 1.5°C global warming limit across an entire calendar year
    1
    .

Attribution to Human Activities​

Studies consistently attribute the observed warming to human activities:
  1. Approximately 90% of carbon dioxide emissions come from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes
    3
    .
  2. 92% of 2023's record-shattering heat was caused by humans
    5
    .
  3. The human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible" by the scientific community
    2
    .
These scientific findings, based on extensive research and data from multiple sources, provide robust evidence for human-caused global warming, independent of any individual's personal actions or lifestyle.
Yeah, but Al Gore has a big house with a heated pool, so that means all your science is wrong. :cool:
 

Yeah, but Al Gore has a big house with a heated pool, so that means all your science is wrong. :cool:
I never said the science of permafrost melting is wrong, just that the attention is put on us as the people to make changes on how we live. You never hear the advocates of climate change putting the blame on the source, IE Hollywood, Las Vegas, Pro Sports and Large music concerts and the lavish living of the elite. None of them take any personal responsibility. That was my point. Also we can't control China and they are the worlds largest producers of emissions.

Am I concerned about the melting permafrost, especially in Alaska? Yes! Native tribes have had to move to higher ground because of the melt that has their ancestorial grounds sinking. There are several teams of scientist working with the tribes daily and have for years to find a solution for their survival. I have been following these studies for years.

Now, the idea that as individuals, we can drive electric cars, not use gas cooking stoves, and such and that would make a difference is ludicrous. If we stopped all manmade carbon emissions today, it wouldn't make much difference for many years. maybe in our lifetime. Why? Because the damage to the atmosphere has been done and the sun will continue to melt the artic ice. You cannot legislate the atmosphere to recover or the sun to cool off a bit.

The artic ice reflects the sun, is how for millions of years, the permafrost has stayed frozen. The permafrost seals the methane rich organic matter below, thus keeping methane from escaping into the atmosphere. The methane emissions from the melting permafrost will far override any man made release. This is why the tribes and non political scientist are looking for a solution now.

Reflective material is still being studied to replace the disappearing artic ice. Research concerning melting artic ice, was being done way before Al Gore or the climate change activist that have no solutions, made it political. If any of you have an idea how to dampen the suns power, then please contact the Alaskan Tribes and the scientist helping them. Also other northern places could benefit from your knowledge.

Man did not cause the quick freeze millions of years ago that quicky sealed the vegetation below. However, now man is faced with stopping its release.

How much irreversible atmospheric damage was caused by modern day emissions and how much by natural causes, will always be a debate. At this point, it is like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
 
Al Gore knows nothing about earth science and climate change, nothing! All he knows is the politics.

Disregard anything a politician or Hollywood elite says about science and study earth science for yourself. Maybe open up that old text from High School or your College years before science was controlled by politics.
Thanks for the advice. :rolleyes: Since Al Gore is a politician he didn't have to be an expert on earth science and climate change, but he was just a public figure getting out the word.

Politics doesn't typically control science...as much as some factions would want it to, and have you believe.
 
@SamiD, while it's true that China is currently the number one contributor to anthropogenic climate change, they have been investing heavily in clean energy technology.

China has the largest installed solar capacity in the world. It has invested heavily in large-scale solar farms and rooftop solar systems. They lead in wind energy production, with a substantial number of onshore and offshore wind farms. It is also home to the world’s largest hydropower plant, the Three Gorges Dam, and continues to expand its hydropower capacity.

The Chinese government provides significant subsidies and incentives for renewable energy projects, research, and development. Clean energy has been a core focus of China’s recent five-year economic plans, emphasizing renewable energy expansion and energy efficiency. China has pledged to peak its carbon emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, driving investments in clean energy and low-carbon technologies.

China is the largest market for electric vehicles, with strong government support through subsidies and charging infrastructure. Chinese companies, such as CATL, dominate the global market for EV batteries and energy storage systems.

China has made remarkable advancements in high-speed rail (HSR) transportation, establishing the largest and most advanced HSR network in the world.
 
If we stopped all manmade carbon emissions today, it wouldn't make much difference for many years. maybe in our lifetime. Why? Because the damage to the atmosphere has been done and the sun will continue to melt the artic ice.
I believe this is true, because the Earth's climate has a lot of inertia. We did a tremendous amount of environmental devastation for years, going back to before us old timers were born, and no one gave a thought to climate change until science started making mathematical calculations 60 or 70 years ago. Then we continued the destruction for 60 years without serious effects, because the Earth's climate has inertia.

But once the change is set in motion, inertia keeps it going even when we put the brakes on. So even if we did a full stop on carbon production right now, the change will continue to get worse. At best it will get worse more slowly.
 
If it's humans that are responsible for changes in the climate, maybe there are just too many humans. The population keeps growing out of control, and more people means more need for stuff, places to live and the industry on the planet to provide it. Talk about population control should come before talk of climate control.
 
I think humans are responsible for most of the changes in the climate, and it's not how many there are, but the way of life we have chosen. It seems to have been geared more towards convenience, comfort, and greed, more than what's best for society and the planet.

We may make fun of the Amish, and their primitive ways, but perhaps their values warrant some merit. They are not necessarily opposed to some modern technology and devices. The Amish believe that technology should be used in a way that supports, rather than undermines, their values and way of life. They are actually opposed to things that will make people more distant from each other and less caring about their neighbors.

They are very cautious about adopting new technologies. They carefully consider the potential impact on their way of life and what they value, before making a decision. What would the world look like if all humans had that mindset. It's merely a philosophical point because chasing that pipe dream is a fool's errand, but there is accountability for all choices we make, and now the bill has arrived.
 
I think humans are responsible for most of the changes in the climate, and it's not how many there are, but the way of life we have chosen. It seems to have been geared more towards convenience, comfort, and greed, more than what's best for society and the planet.

We may make fun of the Amish, and their primitive ways, but perhaps their values warrant some merit. They are not necessarily opposed to some modern technology and devices. The Amish believe that technology should be used in a way that supports, rather than undermines, their values and way of life. They are actually opposed to things that will make people more distant from each other and less caring about their neighbors.

They are very cautious about adopting new technologies. They carefully consider the potential impact on their way of life and what they value, before making a decision. What would the world look like if all humans had that mindset. It's merely a philosophical point because chasing that pipe dream is a fool's errand, but there is accountability for all choices we make, and now the bill has arrived.
The Amish certainly live a lifestyle more in sync with nature than those shouting for change whose lives create a mega carbon emission. If we compare the Amish to the Alaskan Natives, then we see the Amish with a larger carbon emission.

The thing is, for years the melting permafrost has made coastal living a problem for the Alaskan Natives. It has forced them to move to higher ground where the permafrost is deeper and not melting. Since their life style, for generations, was based on coastal subsistence living, this change created many problems for them.

Very few and certainly no lower 48 politicians gave a fat rats tail about them and their plight, until recent years, then scientist released info on the escaping methane due to the permafrost barrier no longer covering these organic decaying areas and that methane would affect the entire planet. Then the panic started and politicians pushing for green energy and such became wealthy and the Natives were and are still faced with a problem.

Wind turbines and solar cells haven't done jack to slow the melt. In fact in my opinion, they have added to it because of the massive burning coal factories that produce them.

They work for solutions daily while the politics, many times full of false narratives, continues and creates a doom day scenario for many that haven't studied the science and rather choose to believe anything the political party they are aligned with, says.

Who has been left out of the big Climate Change meetings? The Arctic Natives of the world, many still living like they have for generations. Who knows more about permafrost melting effects than the native people?

Here is a photo my dad, a scientist, took in 1959 of a melting Alaskan glacier. We lived there five months
during the late spring. summer, and early fall to study melting glaciers. This topic is a 66 year old one for me.
I have a great love for the indigenous people of Alaska, even thought my Indian heritage is mostly from the
southeastern USA and southern Canada.

Glacier in June Alaska trip.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here is a comparison of Grewingk Glacier, my photo from Aug. 1959 and an online photo from 2022 that appeared to be taken late spring. It was as close to the same angle as I could find. I don't see a lot of difference and if anything it looks like it has increased in size. This might be because it appears to be taken in the spring and also slightly different angle. I know one scientist discussing with my dad that Grewingk would be gone by 2000. It appears, he was wrong.

rs sm.jpg 408 224.jpg
 
The question should not be what the people are willing to give up. but what are the millions of elites and wealthy willing to give up. Ask Taylor Swift what she will give up. She attracts millions of the younger generation and is setting an example of gross greed and a life full of extravagant waste and pollution.
https://www.tmz.com/2024/11/15/taylor-swift-motorcade-toronto-highway-traffic-eras-tour/

.....and the media covers for her. Lotta gas being burned on both sides of the highway.
 
The question should not be what the people are willing to give up. but what are the millions of elites and wealthy willing to give up. Ask Taylor Swift what she will give up. She attracts millions of the younger generation and is setting an example of gross greed and a life full of extravagant waste and pollution.

Oh, lets blame Taylor Swift. That sounds like a good idea. She is a powerful woman. We cant have that.
 
...

But we're back once more to the essential question: What are people willing to give up?

I think what's really going on is the plummeting stock prices of "renewable energy" companies, coupled with the projected loss of the massive government subsidies that make it possible at all.
In about 5 weeks, it'll be 50 years since the first US president to do so, sounded the alarm about fossil-fuel carbon emissions. Well, and radioactive emissions, but, after all, it was 50yrs ago.

So, he put our money where his mouth was, getting Congress to immediately fund at least 3 major environmental programs to clean up this filthy place and keep the earth's atmosphere where it belongs, create new environmental regulatory agencies and appoint their carbon-climate scientist over-seers, and pass about 1/2 a dozen new emergency environmental laws.

Today, after 50 years and trillions of tax-dollars invested, the atmospheric carbon level is nearly 3% higher than experts predicted it would be if we all just ignored the issue and spent nothing.

uhh.... o_O
 
Oh, lets blame Taylor Swift. That sounds like a good idea. She is a powerful woman. We cant have that.
When a political party that supports a so called green agenda, pays Swift for her political endorsement, then I see hypocrisy.

My point is simple, don't ask or tell or lecture us common folks about how we must change our already low carbon footprint (compared to theirs) to save the planet. Don't legislate changes to the USA while other countries don't comply other than by words, never backed by actions.

Don't label those that oppose the politics of climate change as deniers. I believe in the science that backs real climate change. I also know that the permafrost is melting and has been for years. Very few cared until it was a political issue sponsored by their party. Those politicians had no clue what they are talking about, but shouted the loudest and scared folks into thinking the end was coming in a few years.

All their agendas have failed and shown to use more fossil fuels to produce, ship, install, and then dispose when they reach their short lifespan.

Just one of many landfills for fossil fuel produced wind turbine blades. Those blades are 80 feet long.
The same amount of fossil fuels used for these blades from start to finish, would have produced 100
times more the electricity in a fossil fuel power plant than they did as a wind turbine.

28085538-8294057-image-a-24_1588795731941-3030906025.jpg
 
Hopefully, some good will come from Elon Musk being an advisor to the new administration. Since he stands to gain financially from the promotion of EVs and the construction of a national EV charging station infrastructure, it may actually come to fruition.

He's also been working on a "hyperloop" system for mass transportation. I believe he built a test system in Texas. Personally, I think it would be claustrophobic. I'd rather have a high-speed rail system where you could look out the window and see the country as you're traveling 200MPH.

I took the high speed rail line from London to Paris a few years ago and it was great! Beautiful scenery, comfortable ride, reliable, and fast!
 
What's your source for that?
I do my own thinking and research. I don't quote sources. You can easily search and find it as well as all other famous people that were paid, some millions for their endorsement.

I don't play the cite your sources forum game. It doesn't encourage folks to do their own thinking and research. I don't care if others agree with me or not. I don't care about likes and being popular on any forum. I love intelligent discussion by thinking people, not copy and paste or quoting sources.
 
When a political party that supports a so called green agenda, pays Swift for her political endorsement, then I see hypocrisy.

My point is simple, don't ask or tell or lecture us common folks about how we must change our already low carbon footprint (compared to theirs) to save the planet. Don't legislate changes to the USA while other countries don't comply other than by words, never backed by actions.

Don't label those that oppose the politics of climate change as deniers. I believe in the science that backs real climate change. I also know that the permafrost is melting and has been for years. Very few cared until it was a political issue sponsored by their party. Those politicians had no clue what they are talking about, but shouted the loudest and scared folks into thinking the end was coming in a few years.

All their agendas have failed and shown to use more fossil fuels to produce, ship, install, and then dispose when they reach their short lifespan.

Just one of many landfills for fossil fuel produced wind turbine blades. Those blades are 80 feet long.
The same amount of fossil fuels used for these blades from start to finish, would have produced 100
times more the electricity in a fossil fuel power plant than they did as a wind turbine.


View attachment 392282
Not all things are the way they seem on the surface.
This article sheds a different light on it.
How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables
 
Not all things are the way they seem on the surface.
This article sheds a different light on it.
How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables
The writer says that wind turbines have a 99% less footprint than coal, yet he doesn't consider the emmissions the coal plant puts out in
Not all things are the way they seem on the surface.
This article sheds a different light on it.
How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables
New report hahaha! Just a writer paid to promote an agenda. The article totally lacks in facts and the writer having any knowledge about what they write. It is stupid to say a turbine has 99% less footprint than a coal generator when coal fired plants are used to make them. A portion of the coal fired plants footprint must be included in the wind turbines footprint.
 
Not all things are the way they seem on the surface.
This article sheds a different light on it.
How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables
So it's like adding extra insulation to your house. The initial cost is high, while the monthly payback is small, but adds up to net gain down the road. That's not rocket science. Many investments work that way, but yes, the initial investment feels like an "ouch" to the pocketbook.
 
A portion of the coal fired plants footprint must be included in the wind turbines footprint.
That is only true because coal and fossil fuel fired plants are currently the main producers of electric current. In time, the turbines will be using turbine produced electricity to make more turbines. But you are focusing on short term economics. The real issue behind this change is environmental damage cause by coal itself, and the decrease in damage from renewables. And yes protecting our environment is not going to be free. The cost of turning either resource into electricity will still be a factor, but coal fired plants have the added cost of having buy the coal.
 

Last edited:

Back
Top