Or Native American Indians and smallpox. First case of deliberate germ warfare recorded so I am led to believe.
As for viruses I would have thought they would need to evolve through direct contact with host species to actually develop strength and numbers but being trapped in ice out of reach of mammalian hosts (I refer here to our own and other mammalian species because it is unlikely, but probably not impossible for say plant viruses to harm humans directly) they would effectively fall behind in evolutionary development and by comparison to the life forms currently strutting their stuff topside they would be positively archaic and therefore not complex enough nor evolved enough to do us any real harm. However unlike Mandy I am not anywhere as knowledgeable on the viral mechanisms and/or their evolutionary processes.
Just a thought.
Kev C
Brian Orr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Don't agree with you Douglas.
So the Black Death didn't happen?
More importantly, the potential release of this enormous store of methane is predicted to get underway when the world's
temperature is around 1.5˚C, but 'common sense' suggests this is not a trigger point and my guess is that the process
predicted is already slowly underway - although at present temperatures it is probably nothing to worry about. But the
earth's temperature is rising quite 'nicely' - and accelerating, as positive feed-backs kick-in and fossil fuel consumption
is still going up, so I think we could easily hit 1.5˚C in 20 - 30 years time. We would still probably have our civilisation
largely intact, apart from some major hiccups with 'bad weather' and food supply difficulties - hitting the poorest primarily.
So we do have the potential for something nasty happening here - aside from the acceleration towards 'planet Venus'.
And regarding the survivability of these micro-organisms, I think it was your good self, Douglas, that pointed out to me that
viruses aren't really a life-form. My guess is that many of them can survive almost any conditions that the earth's surface
can come up with.
And as for our immune system(s) always having developed in the context of "new threats from micro-organisms", not strictly
true. Our immune system can only develop through the agency of an actual attack by said micro-organisms and quite often
the 'development' is achieved through natural selection. Go back in time and ask the South Sea Islanders what happened
when they were introduced to the common cold, or ditto for rabbits and myxomatosis!
Cheers,
Brian
On 24 Feb 2013, at 20:49, Webmaster wrote:
I’m not sure I’d worry too much about bacteria and viruses – by the time anything in there (if there were anything hazardous) were out, the conditions for rapid global transmission of diseases would no longer be present – ie high population densities and high speed global travel would both be things of the past.
In any case we are always facing new threats from microorganisms – our immune systems have always developed in that context.
Regards,
Douglas
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Carter
Sent: 24 February 2013 13:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Major methane release is almost inevitable - New Scientist
Hi Graham thank you for spotting this added risk from allowing global warming to melt the Arctic.
The reservoir of ancient microbes is enormous and once again the public has a right to know.
From: [log in to unmask]" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">Independent Scientist Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:56 AM
Subject: RE: Major methane release is almost inevitable - New Scientist
The situation re permafrost is actually worse than realised. I had a long conversation with a bio-scientist friend yesterday, who had been brooding on the subject. The permafrost is in some areas about 4km deep. It is very old. It contains deep frozen bio-wastes, such as rotted trees, bushes, animal remains, etc, all of which have saturation levels of frozen bacteria and virus's. The methane venting is going to release into the atmosphere ancient virus and bacterial agents that have not been "loose" for up to 500,000 years. Both human and animals will have no immune response to these agents.
I will spell it out simply:
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:27:14 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
To: "petercarter46"@shaw.ca
CC: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Major methane release is almost inevitable - New Scientist
Hi all,
They have found from stalagmite that the permafrost has only melted once in the last 500,000 years, when the temperature was only 1.5 degrees higher than today. This is stunning news, because we have already passed that threshold.
As we would expect, Tim Lenton has downplayed the danger [1], as he did in giving evidence to the Environment Audit Committee last year. He says the greatest danger is for the buildings built on permafrost. My foot! What about those emissions of methane into the atmosphere? He dismisses the danger without any good argument to do so. He knows the quantity of organic material, and that most of it will emitted as methane when the permafrost thaws, because the conditions are essentially anaerobic. He also knows that the permafrost will thaw quite quickly, because the Arctic is warming at about a degree a decade - far faster than global warming. Thus the 1.5 degrees is already exceeded, as regards the local temperature.
I don't think he is lying. Rather he is under the delusion that the sea ice will last for decades, and everything will happen slowly. He won't admit it, but he is terrified by the sea ice volume trend (with September 2015 virtually sea ice free), and this has led to subconscious suppression of the "bad news" about the permafrost, methane, etc.
But it's not just Tim Lenton in denial. Among many scientists who study the Arctic, one sees this suppression of the reality of the vicious cycle of warming and melting in the Arctic because it is just so frightening. And if this problem continues to be ignored, we will all suffer the consequences of inaction - the most immediate being a worsening disruption of the jet stream, with the escalation in climate extremes precipitating a monumental food crisis.
The good news is that we are not too late to cool the Arctic, if only we were prepared to consider emergency geoengineering this summer. We need some scientists who are brave enough to confront the reality of the situation, cut through the crap from the danger deniers, and demand international action at top priority.
Cheers,
John
[1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23205-major-methane-release-is-almost-inevitable.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment
[Quote]
What are the consequences? The greatest concern, says Tim Lenton of the University of Exeter in the UK, is the regional landscape. Buildings and infrastructure are often built on hard permafrost, and will start subsiding. "Ice roads won't exist any more."
The increasingly soggy permafrost will also threaten the pipelines that transport Russian gas to Europe. "The maintenance and upkeep of that infrastructure is going to cost a lot more," says Schuur.
As for the methane that could be released into the atmosphere, Schuur estimates that emissions will be equivalent to between 160 and 290 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
That sounds like a lot, but is little compared to the vast amount humans are likely to emit, says Lenton. "The signal's going to be swamped by fossil fuel [emissions]."
He says the dangers of the permafrost greenhouse gases have been overhyped, particularly as much of the methane will be converted to carbon dioxide by microbes in the soil, leading to a slower warming effect.
Schuur agrees with Lenton that the methane emissions are "not a runaway effect but an additional source that is not accounted in current climate models".
[End quote]
--
On 23/02/2013 07:08, Peter Carter wrote: The fuse to the Arctic methane time bomb has been burning a long time, and without drastic emergency intervention the future is committed to planetary catastrophe. This latest research proves are right out of time.
The Arctic methane time bomb is warming peatlands, thawing permafrost and melting sea floor frozen solid methane hydrate.
Thawing permafrost generates its own heat so reaches a stage where the thawing is self increasing irreversible.
This Arctic methane is at least three times all atmospheric carbon.
There is a way out, but we have to act now or there won’t be- for today's young generation.
Our commitment is way over 1.5C.
1.5C is also the end of the coral reefs.
The ocean heat lag alone commits us to 1.4C by 2100.
Our unavoidable commitment to more warming is at least 2.4C (published).
(Ramanathan Feng 2008 PNAS On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System) ... even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C.
The Ramanathan commitment is from the ocean heat lag (more than doubles todays warming) and unmasking of air pollution aerosol cooling.
The warming incurred by the time it will take to stabilize atmospheric GHGs and the added warming from terrestrial carbon (excludes Arctic carbon) feedback warming has to be added to that to get the total committed warming, which is at least 3C.
Robert Watson has stated we are committed to 3C may be up to 5C.
The World Back says we are rapidly committing ourselves to 4C.
Today’s combined national UN filed emissions reduction pledges commit us the 4.4C by 2100, and nations have not acted on these pledges (Climate Interactive)
An emergency response now can get us below 1.5C
1) rapidly stabilize Arctic albedo snow and ice cooling and thereby Arctic methane by regional Arctic cooling
This also prevents American food producing regions being ruined by drought.
2) zero carbon emissions mitigation on a rapid emergency basis. That is total conversion off all fossil fuels to 100% clean energy.
Zero carbon takes care of most black carbon but there is further black carbon mitigation from other sources of soot like biomass burning and open cook stoves. As black carbon is second only to soot in global warming this can drop the warming 0.5C.
Zero carbon also takes care of most ground level ozone- another much smaller added drop of warming.
Zero carbon decarbonization could be done within 20 years by a total conversion off all fossil fuel energy and a halt to deforestation.
Once virtual zero carbon is reached (we cannot achieve actual zero) atmospheric CO2 concentration is stabilized.
3) World afforestation would remove and store some carbon out of the atmosphere so achieving zero carbon – for many decades at least
4) Biochar would sink carbon for a couple of centuries.
5) Remove CO2 directly from the air (doable in theory) would maintain negative carbon in order to drop atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm.
It will take a hundred years for atmospheric CO2 to get below 350, but if we act now we may leave a legacy of a sustainable future.
If we fail to act now our legacy is a short dark age and no future.
The only hope is to convince people of the planetary Arctic warming emergency- we have to acknowledge how bad this is and then act for our survival.
Peter C
-----Original Message----- From: Oliver Tickell
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Major methane release is almost inevitable - New Scientist
Abstract link
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/02/20/science.1228729.abstract?sid=d26b1542-62e0-4aa0-9239-a82abda2d1ad
Major methane release is almost inevitable
19:00 21 February 2013 by Michael Marshall
We are on the cusp of a tipping point in the climate. If the global
climate warms another few tenths of a degree, a large expanse of the
Siberian permafrost will start to melt uncontrollably. The result: a
significant amount of extra greenhouse gases released into the
atmosphere, and a threat – ironically – to the infrastructure that
carries natural gas from Russia to Europe.The Arctic is warming faster
than the rest of the planet, and climatologists have long warned that
this will cause positive feedbacks that will speed up climate change
further. The region is home to enormous stores of organic carbon, mostly
in the form of permafrost soils and icy clathrates that trap methane – a
powerful greenhouse gas that could escape into the atmosphere.The
Siberian permafrost is a particular danger. A large region called the
Yedoma could undergo runaway decomposition once it starts to melt,
because microbes in the soil would eat the carbon and produce heat,
melting more soil and releasing ever more greenhouse gases. In short,
the melting of Yedoma is a tipping point: once it starts, there may be
no stopping it.For the first time, we have an indication of when this
could start happening. Anton Vaks of the University of Oxford in the UK
and colleagues have reconstructed the history of the Siberian permafrost
going back 500,000 years. We already know how global temperatures have
risen and fallen as ice sheets have advanced and retreated, so Vaks's
team's record of changing permafrost gives an indication of how
sensitive it is to changing temperatures.
Stalagmite record
But there is no direct record of how the permafrost has changed, so Vaks
had to find an indirect method. His team visited six caves that run
along a south-north line, with the two southernmost ones being under the
Gobi desert. Further north, three caves sit beneath a landscape of
sporadic patches of permafrost, and the northernmost cave is right at
the edge of Siberia's continuous permafrost zone.The team focused on the
500,000-year history of stalagmites and similar rock formations in the
caves. "Stalagmites only grow when water flows into caves," Vaks says.
"It cannot happen when the soil is frozen." The team used radiometric
dating to determine how old the stalagmites were. By building up a
record of when they grew, Vaks could figure out when the ground above
the caves was frozen and when it wasn't.As expected, in most of the
caves, stalagmites formed during every warm interglacial period as the
patchy permafrost melted overhead.But it took a particularly warm
interglacial, from 424,000 and 374,000 years ago, for the stalagmites in
the northernmost cave to grow – suggesting the continuous permafrost
overhead melted just once in the last 500,000 years.At the time, global
temperatures were 1.5 °C warmer than they have been in the last 10,000
years. In other words, today's permafrost is likely to become vulnerable
when we hit 1.5 °C of global warming, says Vaks."Up until this point, we
didn't have direct evidence of how this happened in past warming
periods," says Ted Schuur of the University of Florida in Gainesville.It
will be very hard to stop the permafrost degrading as a warming of
1.5 °C is not far off. Between 1850 and 2005, global temperatures rose
0.8 °C, according to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Even if humanity stopped emitting greenhouse gases
tomorrow, temperatures would rise another 0.2 °C over the next 20 years.
That would leave a window of 0.5 °C – but in fact our emissions are
increasing. What's more, new fossil fuel power stations commit us to
several decades of emissions.
Soggy permafrost
What are the consequences? The greatest concern, says Tim Lenton of the
University of Exeter in the UK, is the regional landscape. Buildings and
infrastructure are often built on hard permafrost, and will start
subsiding. "Ice roads won't exist any more."The increasingly soggy
permafrost will also threaten the pipelines that transport Russian gas
to Europe. "The maintenance and upkeep of that infrastructure is going
to cost a lot more," says Schuur.As for the methane that could be
released into the atmosphere, Schuur estimates that emissions will be
equivalent to between 160 and 290 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.That
sounds like a lot, but is little compared to the vast amount humans are
likely to emit, says Lenton. "The signal's going to be swamped by fossil
fuel [emissions]."He says the dangers of the permafrost greenhouse gases
have been overhyped, particularly as much of the methane will
be converted to carbon dioxide by microbes in the soil, leading to a
slower warming effect.Schurr agrees with Lenton that the methane
emissions are "not a runaway effect but an additional source that is not
accounted in current climate models".Journal reference: Science, DOI:
10.1126/science.1228729