Solution for Permafrost melt

[Boges]

I don't know if this has already been discussed on this board, but I just heard about this in the past week. It's apparently not a new theory. 

Quote

 

As Arctic permafrost slowly melts, it is releasing stores of ancient greenhouse gases that could dramatically worsen the effects of climate change – but an unlikely hero could soon help to halt this process.

By reviving woolly mammoths and reintroducing them to the ecosystem, scientists say the tundra can revert to a grassland, helping to insulate the permafrost and trap atmospheric carbon.

Mammoths last walked the Earth roughly 10,000 years ago, but recent developments in DNA sequencing and genome editing could bring them back to life in just a few years.

There are two ways in which scientists can bring about the 'mammoth de-extinction,' according to Popular Science.

One would be to clone the animal using material from ancient specimens, which scientists have attempted since the discovery of tissue in the remains of a woolly mammoth named 'Buttercup.'

The adult female was discovered in May 2013. At 8ft tall, the mammoth, who is estimated to have died at the age of 50, is around the same size as an elephant.

Most of her body, three legs, her head and her trunk were still intact, despite scientists believing Buttercup was eaten by predators after becoming stuck in a bog. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3697970/Could-Buttercup-ZOMBIE-MAMMOTH-save-world-Experts-claim-resurrecting-animals-protect-permafrost.html#ixzz4bD8cbmZH 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

It seems counter-intuative when you consider forrest are supposed to absorb carbon. Whereas this solution is unleashing animals that will create carbon and consume vegetation on arctic landscapes and changing the environment from boreal forest to more of a grassland. 

The HBO show Vice did a segment on this last Friday. 

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by Boges

[?Impact]

The theory is the mammoths stampeding around will compact the snow layer, reducing the insulation ability of the snow. This means that during the winter, the ground will cool off faster and help maintain a lower ground temperature thus preserving the permafrost. This all stems from the soviet era researcher, Sergey Zimov. In his case they were using muskox, bison, reindeer, moose, etc. They has enclosed them in a large area and used temperature probes to measure ground temperature and saw that it lowered faster and colder during the winter months than that outside the fenced off area, helping to preserve the permafrost. I believe the theory is that the mammoths are able to trample more and be sustained by the grasslands better than other animals. Note that mammoths have only been extinct for several thousand years, and they believe that over hunting by man caused their extinction; another contributor to man made global warming.

[Guest]

A couple of questions come to mind:

1) How long would it take to create a herd of Woolly Mammoths large enough to affect the climate?

2) How do they taste?

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

A couple of questions come to mind:

1) How long would it take to create a herd of Woolly Mammoths large enough to affect the climate?

2) How do they taste?

They'd be Elephants with their genetic makeup tweeked to Wooly Mammoth DNA. Very Jurassic Park kind of stuff. 

So if the gestation is similar to that of Elephants it'd take a few decades for sure. 

Watch Poachers looking for Ivory migrating up to Russia just to start hunting Mammoths again. 

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

How long would it take to create a herd of Woolly Mammoths large enough to affect the climate?

I believe the only potentially viable DNA they are using at the moment comes from a recently discovered mammoth named buttercup. If they are able to successfully clone it, and gestate through a surrogate mother (probably elephant), I assume only female offspring would result. They would need to find a viable male in order to get the Y chromosome. Preferably many more to ensure adequate diversity in genetic makeup.

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

How do they taste?

Rumor has it that someone knows. Buttercup was very well preserved, with much of the body intact and even blood thawed and flowed. Apparently someone did taste the meat, although I haven't found any description of taste. While it may not have dried out as quickly as something would in your kitchen freezer, I imagine that there would be some significant "freezer burn" after a few thousand years.

The other answer is of course: like chicken

[?Impact]

Just to add to the science behind where the heat comes from. There are many sources of heat, some of them come from the earth and others from the sun. The solar heat will melt the snow from the previous winter and then begin warming the ground. If there is not enough heat during the summer to melt all the snow then a glacier will form. If all the snow melts and the ground starts to warm then seeds can germinate and grow. It is all about balance. If the summers are warmer then the ground will warm up deeper, and if the winters are colder than then ground will freeze deeper (and colder). Snow acts as an insulating layer and reduces the speed that the ground loses heat during the winter, the compacted snow or ice doesn't insulate as well.

There is another source of heat that needs to be taken into account, and that is the heat from inside the earth. The three main sources of this heat are the primordial heat left over from when the earth was formed, friction from the flow of the liquid and solid parts of the inner core, and radioactive decay from uranium and thorium (and other less abundant elements). The outer rock layer of the earth both retains and very slowly conducts heat. If the heat is more quickly removed during the winter near the surface then it is replaced during the summer then it will maintain a sub freezing temperature. If it is well insulated, then sub surface heat will slowly conduct up and warm it. The rock a few feet blow the surface might be colder in parts of the arctic that experience a summer melt than it would be under a glacier.

[Moonlight Graham]

This idea seems like it's only going to have very minimal effect.  Mammoths are only going to stamp on a very small minority of the permafrost, and will introduce unknown changes to the arctic ecosystem

[Wilber]

Sounds like a real Hail Mary to me.

[?Impact]

44 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Sounds like a real Hail Mary to me.

Yes, I assume the driving force is support any cloning efforts and not real hope of preventing global warming. 

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, I assume the driving force is support any cloning efforts and not real hope of preventing global warming. 

Sounds like an excuse for cloning advocates to get their pet projects approved.

[OftenWrong]

 

9 hours ago, Wilber said:

Sounds like a real Hail Mary to me.

It's madness. What is wrong with people, proposing all these crazy schemes. Next up we need to invent a machine to sequester carbon.

Ever heard of planting a tree?

[?Impact]

18 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Next up we need to invent a machine to sequester carbon.

Ever heard of planting a tree?

Trees don't last for hundreds of millions of years. Planting one does little when you clearcut forests and bring down 1000 for every one you plant. Trees can be part of a sustainable economy, but they can't offset releasing carbon from fossil fuels.

...and no I don't support the dumb solution where they got our federal government, and a couple of provincial governments to pony up several billion dollars for the CSS pipe dream.

[Boges]

From what I gather, Trees are actually the problem in this part of the world in regards to permafrost. Forests only developed once humans hunted the wildlife to extinction. 

The big concern regarding permafrost isn't the water being released as much as the methane that's trapped in the ice being released into the atmosphere. 

Releasing wild animals into the environment can't hurt. 

[overthere]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 

It's madness. What is wrong with people, proposing all these crazy schemes. Next up we need to invent a machine to sequester carbon.

Ever heard of planting a tree?

I am willing to bet that these scientists have heard of planting trees.  But I guess you are not aware of the nature of permafrost.  Trees and taproots don't do well in ground that is permanently frozen.

 

Tip: drive through Yukon on the Dempster highway, where you can personally witness the transition form boreal forest to tundra.  It is quite abrupt. There aren't any trees on the tundra.  And bonus: a wondrous trip too.

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, overthere said:

I am willing to bet that these scientists have heard of planting trees.  But I guess you are not aware of the nature of permafrost.  Trees and taproots don't do well in ground that is permanently frozen.

 

Tip: drive through Yukon on the Dempster highway, where you can personally witness the transition form boreal forest to tundra.  It is quite abrupt. There aren't any trees on the tundra.  And bonus: a wondrous trip too.

Major forests have been decimated worldwide over the last 50 years. We heard from environmentalists about the potential danger of clearcutting vast areas of Brazilian rainforest. That was long ago and no longer even part of the discussion any more.

It seems sensible to me to think that large forests act as CO2 regulators, in that they ultimately convert elements from the environment into solid carbon.

And furthermore, all the fuel we are burning is from the hydrocarbon from ancient forests, that is now being released into the environment in a very short time. Trees are a simple win-win solution to reducing CO2 and increasing O2 levels, while storing solar energy and carbon in the form of wood and leaves.

[OftenWrong]

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Trees don't last for hundreds of millions of years. Planting one does little when you clearcut forests and bring down 1000 for every one you plant.

They don't need to last hundreds of millions of years. As to clearcuts, I meant to say plant MORE trees. I think that should be obvious. And I was mainly referring to extensive rainforest destruction that has already taken place, not the boreal forests of Canada. Our forests are reasonably well protected, and now among the biggest in the world.

[taxme]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

They don't need to last hundreds of millions of years. As to clearcuts, I meant to say plant MORE trees. I think that should be obvious. And I was mainly referring to extensive rainforest destruction that has already taken place, not the boreal forests of Canada. Our forests are reasonably well protected, and now among the biggest in the world.

 

On 3/13/2017 at 6:11 AM, Boges said:

I don't know if this has already been discussed on this board, but I just heard about this in the past week. It's apparently not a new theory. 

It seems counter-intuative when you consider forrest are supposed to absorb carbon. Whereas this solution is unleashing animals that will create carbon and consume vegetation on arctic landscapes and changing the environment from boreal forest to more of a grassland. 

The HBO show Vice did a segment on this last Friday. 

 

Well, maybe they should demand that China and India and Africa stop having millions of new babies very year. Billions of people that are living in those countries have to be affecting the climate in many ways. But those countries appear to not give two hoots about the environment so what's the point? And by the time they can get a few dozen mammoth elephants cloned and ready to go I don't think that it will solve in anyway the so-called global climate problem. It is a well known fact that other parts of the world are growing more trees than they normally do. Trees like to eat carbon. They suck it up like candy. And apparently the Antarctic has more snow falling there than normal.  

I think that bringing back the mammoth idea is a waste of time and energy and money, and whether it will really work at all. Of course there maybe other factors involved here? Maybe this is a plan by nature for whatever reason to melt the north, and start the growth of a new environment. I believe that there are fraudsters out there like Al Gore  or David Suzuki who have made millions from selling their books on this so-called threat from global warming. Relax, nothing is going to happen that will kill us all off if some extra snow melts in the Arctic. It just might be better for us all in the long run. Hey, you never know. 

[OftenWrong]

4 minutes ago, taxme said:

I think that bringing back the mammoth idea is a waste of time and energy and money, and whether it will really work at all.

It's a completely ludicrous idea. Ludicrous I say...  Should make a hell of a Disney movie.

[OftenWrong]

6 minutes ago, taxme said:

It is a well known fact that other parts of the world are growing more trees than they normally do. Trees like to eat carbon. They suck it up like candy. And apparently the Antarctic has more snow falling there than normal.

Right, more CO2, is good for your home garden too!

[?Impact]

15 minutes ago, taxme said:

demand that ... Africa stop having millions of new babies very year

It seems the right wing want them to have babies and babies and babies. When someone mentions a condom, they call them a murderer. 

[taxme]

25 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's a completely ludicrous idea. Ludicrous I say...  Should make a hell of a Disney movie.

 What should we call that Disney movie? Any ideas?  

I hope that no one wants to try and bring back the saber tooth tiger next. The polar bear could be in real trouble then. 

[taxme]

30 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Right, more CO2, is good for your home garden too!

People seem to forget that CO2 is good for the planet. The more CO2 means more trees and grass. Nature will respond according to the needs. Have no fear, nature is here. 

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-03-13 at 9:11 AM, Boges said:

I don't know if this has already been discussed on this board, but I just heard about this in the past week. It's apparently not a new theory.

 

Sounds like something some idiot at a university dreamed up, in order to get his PhD. Only so many things left to get a PhD on, you see.

[taxme]

25 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It seems the right wing want them to have babies and babies and babies. When someone mentions a condom, they call them a murderer. 

Right wing or left wing makes no difference. They all keep wanting to feed the foreign-aid monster. Pro foreign-aid groups always want more money for those third world countries because there is lots of money to be made from foreign-aid. Keep having more babies.and get more money from the fools and countries who keep giving them welfare money. The taxpayer's keep donating and nothing ever gets done. The sad part is that the taxpayer's don't seem to ever get it yet. Many of these third world countries have been getting billions of foreign-aid welfare dollars for decades, and yet poverty still runs rampant in those countries, and they keep having more babies. It's an endless cycle of nonsense and foolishness  and you get to keep paying for it. 

When I mention that they should stop breeding or wear a condom, I get dirty looks.   

[taxme]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Sounds like something some idiot at a university dreamed up, in order to get his PhD. Only so many things left to get a PhD on, you see.

Exactly. They have to be running out pretty soon of those PhD'S. Anyway, dream up something like this, and hopefully get money from the government to help you along and pay for your dream to maybe come true. Once again the taxpayer may have to take it up the rear once more. When will the taxpayer ever learn? It's enough to make a smart and intelligent grown up man cry.