Reversing Global Warming

A clever team from Britain has come up with a novel way of preventing Global Warming by mimicing volcanoes.

The idea is to launch a giant balloon in to the upper atmosphere that can release millions of tiny chemical particles which can then float around and reflect the suns rays back and so keeping the earth cool.

With luck, it could cool the Earth by 2 degrees and balance out the predicted Global Warming.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...77_634x381.jpg

Well it's not April 1st, and I cannot believe somone thinks this is a good idea. This just has "gift that keeps on giving" written all over it. I thought some climatologists were nuts, but this takes the biscuit. Perhaps he might want to consider what would happen if the earth started to cool off.

More lunacy here

Is "climatologist" the new "super villain"?

With a base in Norfolk, I think they are starting small and working their way up.

This is why I think our top priority should be terraforming Mars. That way we can study climate manipulation without having to worry about killing millions or billions of people if we fuck something up.

So silly to just for the fairly simple solution of:
Cleaner cars, trucks, ships & planes
Much more efficient appliances
Better built new homes
Cleaner coal
Solar
Wind
New safer nuke
Better transmission lines
More trees
Etc.

It's too hard too do the right thing isn't it?

There's no profit in doing the right thing, silly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

So silly to just for the fairly simple solution of:
Cleaner cars, trucks, ships & planes
Much more efficient appliances
Better built new homes
Cleaner coal
Solar
Wind
New safer nuke
Better transmission lines
More trees
Etc.

It's too hard too do the right thing isn't it?

---

Apparently. I'm not up on all of the recent advances in cleaner coal, wind power, and safer nuclear power, but I have solar panels out here and I am stunned by just how much power I get, particularly considering I'm in northern Wisconsin rather than anywhere one could call "sunny." I've even been using little solar powered battery chargers for flashlights, my optic mouse, and things like that. I wish people realized just how easy some of these measures could be, and how much money they can save themselves while reducing pollution.

I've said it before but surely the US is vast enough that a relatively unpopulated part could be clustered with safe nuclear for all your energy needs. A seismically safe Great Plains state perhaps? I suppose transfering that energy to where it will be used is an issue, as is using electric to power personal transportation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

So silly to just for the fairly simple solution of:
Cleaner cars, trucks, ships & planes

---

The current automotive fleet in the US turns over at 20 year intervals, with the average vehicle age on the road being about 10 years old. Trucks (as in the big rig type), planes, and ships are awfully expensive to upgrade/replace.

Quote:

---

Much more efficient appliances

---

Which tend to be replaced on 5-10 year intervals.

Quote:

---

Better built new homes

---

Not exactly a sellers market for new homes these days.

Quote:

---

Cleaner coal

---

Una has her doubts about much of the clean coal tech.

Quote:

---

Solar

---

A solar thermal plant covering 1,000 square miles would provide enough energy to meet all the current energy needs of the US, even accounting for periods when the sun wasn't shining on the plant. A 10,000 square mile plant would meet the world's needs. Nobody wants to build them though.

Quote:

---

Wind

---

Considered to be an eyesore by many people.

Quote:

---

New safer nuke

---

A tough sell after that recent business in Japan.

Quote:

---

Better transmission lines

---

Expensive and unsexy. (If you can find the single topic issue Scientific American on energy from a few years ago, they basically layout the perfect power grid.)

Quote:

---

More trees

---

Unsexy and make it difficult to build Starbucks locations.

Quote:

---

Etc.

---

You mean like the giant balloon which inspired the OP? And don't forget about ol' Jevon's Paradox.

Quote:

---

It's too hard too do the right thing isn't it?

---

The one thing I've noticed about global warming news is that the scientists almost always seem to say something like, "You remember how bad we said things were going to get if we didn't slow down? Well, we rechecked our numbers and it turns out they're going to be worse."

We could cut our emissions to zero tomorrow and still be fucked. We won't know for sure for some time. Not to mention there's always the possibility of some kind of massive event (really big volcano eruption, comet/meteor strike, natural disaster) screwing the climate up, even if global warming does get solved. Having an idea of how to deal with the issue before the shit hits the fan makes a lot of sense to me. Additionally, being able to monitor how things like oceans form on Mars will help us understand how they formed on Earth and enable us to better take care of the ones here on Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

The one thing I've noticed about global warming news is that the scientists almost always seem to say something like, "You remember how bad we said things were going to get if we didn't slow down? Well, we rechecked our numbers and it turns out they're going to be worse."

We could cut our emissions to zero tomorrow and still be fucked. We won't know for sure for some time.

---

I used to just believe nonsense like that. After the climategate emails came out I became a skeptic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by F-X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

The one thing I've noticed about global warming news is that the scientists almost always seem to say something like, "You remember how bad we said things were going to get if we didn't slow down? Well, we rechecked our numbers and it turns out they're going to be worse."

We could cut our emissions to zero tomorrow and still be fucked. We won't know for sure for some time.

---

I used to just believe nonsense like that. After the climategate emails came out I became a skeptic.

---

If you're going to swallow the idea that there's a conspiracy pushing global warming when there really isn't any warming, you might as well believe that we never went to the Moon, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, Bush was behind 9/11, and every other conspiracy theory out there.

Crazy responses like that don't help credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by F-X

Crazy responses like that don't help credibility.

---

No crazier than saying there's a pro-global warming conspiracy. After all, if one is in for a penny, they might as well be in for a pound.

I was speaking specifically to the nonsense of ,"We could cut our emissions to zero tomorrow and still be fucked."

Such insane sort of pronouncements, especially from "scientists", is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by F-X

I was speaking specifically to the nonsense of ,"We could cut our emissions to zero tomorrow and still be fucked."

Such insane sort of pronouncements, especially from "scientists", is nonsense.

---

And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by F-X

I was speaking specifically to the nonsense of ,"We could cut our emissions to zero tomorrow and still be fucked."

Such insane sort of pronouncements, especially from "scientists", is nonsense.

---

I find that very doubtful myself but there is a worse case scenario that says we've already pumped too many Green House gasses into the atmosphere and that our best efforts may not work but most of the community seems to agree we still have time to correct the problem and can arrest the temperature rise at a level we can handle. Though 50 years from now we are likely to have a lot of coastal flooding issues and as so many of our large cities are coastal this can prove far more expensive than aggressively addressing the issue now instead of debating it to death and moving slowly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by F-X

I was speaking specifically to the nonsense of ,"We could cut our emissions to zero tomorrow and still be fucked."

Such insane sort of pronouncements, especially from "scientists", is nonsense.

---

I find that very doubtful myself but there is a worse case scenario that says we've already pumped too many Green House gasses into the atmosphere and that our best efforts may not work but most of the community seems to agree we still have time to correct the problem and can arrest the temperature rise at a level we can handle. Though 50 years from now we are likely to have a lot of coastal flooding issues and as so many of our large cities are coastal this can prove far more expensive than aggressively addressing the issue now instead of debating it to death and moving slowly.

---

The optimistic estimates I've seen say that if we hold to our current level of emissions or lower, we'll have a 2 degree rise in temps by the end of the century. The problem is that we're uncertain as to how much trouble that's going to cause. We've already got increased emissions of greenhouse gases from things like melting permafrost which are unlikely to slow down any time soon. Then there's the potential instability caused by droughts and so on.

No matter how you stack it, the picture isn't pretty.

The problem is that the climate change hysterics really do themselves no favours when they start releasing things like "Greenland has lost 15% of ice over the last 12 years" and then producing some maps to prove it.

Its along the same lines as all the Himalayan Glaciers will be gone by 2035.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

The problem is that the climate change hysterics really do themselves no favours when they start releasing things like "Greenland has lost 15% of ice over the last 12 years" and then producing some maps to prove it.

Its along the same lines as all the Himalayan Glaciers will be gone by 2035.

---

Yes, but isn't the The Times Atlas published by one of noted global warming opponent Rupert Murdoch's companies? How much trust should you put into anything they print?

Well seeing as the material was highly pro climate change, does that mean Murdoch has changed his mind?

Greenland has lost ice near the oceans. The ice sheet is gaining mass.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

Well seeing as the material was highly pro climate change, does that mean Murdoch has changed his mind?

---

Never read Machiavelli, have you? I note that the folks I know who simply repeat anything and everything they hear on talk radio as gospel have failed to pick up on this story, which I find curious, since they normally seize upon such things as "proof of the conspiracy!!!!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

Never read Machiavelli, have you? I note that the folks I know who simply repeat anything and everything they hear on talk radio as gospel have failed to pick up on this story, which I find curious, since they normally seize upon such things as "proof of the conspiracy!!!!"

---

So what you are saying is that Rupert Murdoch told the Times Maps to deliberately make this mistake so it could be picked up by the media and trumpeted as yet another example of Climate Change purveyors being wrong again.

Keep the Machiavelli, I'll stick to Occam, which says its far more likely someone was looking for a great selling point and it got out of hand.

What I find stupid is the terminology: climate change believer/denier. I don't think anyone disagrees that there is climate change otherwise we wouldn't have had the Ice Ages. What needs to be clarified is just how much impact man is having on the planet through his actions and whether the planet can absorb what is occuring or if we are tilting towards the abyss.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

Never read Machiavelli, have you? I note that the folks I know who simply repeat anything and everything they hear on talk radio as gospel have failed to pick up on this story, which I find curious, since they normally seize upon such things as "proof of the conspiracy!!!!"

---

So what you are saying is that Rupert Murdoch told the Times Maps to deliberately make this mistake so it could be picked up by the media and trumpeted as yet another example of Climate Change purveyors being wrong again.

Keep the Machiavelli, I'll stick to Occam, which says its far more likely someone was looking for a great selling point and it got out of hand.

---

Given the crap (phone hacking scandal, "accidentally" labeling Republicans as Democrats because they said things Rupert disagreed with, etc.) Rupert's people have pulled, i don't think you can rule out the possibility that it was an attempt to discredit global warming.

Quote:

---

What I find stupid is the terminology: climate change believer/denier. I don't think anyone disagrees that there is climate change otherwise we wouldn't have had the Ice Ages. What needs to be clarified is just how much impact man is having on the planet through his actions and whether the planet can absorb what is occuring or if we are tilting towards the abyss.

---

And you'd be wrong. I know of plenty of people who do not believe the climate is changing at all. They deny that the climate is currently getting warming to any degree (no pun intended). According to them, any data showing this is false.

Nor is this one or two lone nutters, but numerous individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

Given the crap (phone hacking scandal, "accidentally" labeling Republicans as Democrats because they said things Rupert disagreed with, etc.) Rupert's people have pulled, i don't think you can rule out the possibility that it was an attempt to discredit global warming.

---

Now who is believing in conspiracies. ;)
Given the shitstorm that descended, you would have thought that Murdoch could have done without yet another publishing issue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

And you'd be wrong. I know of plenty of people who do not believe the climate is changing at all. They deny that the climate is currently getting warming to any degree (no pun intended). According to them, any data showing this is false.

Nor is this one or two lone nutters, but numerous individuals.

---

Ok, now this is depressing. I would love to know how they account for the seasons then, which are mini yearly climate changes in their own right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

Given the crap (phone hacking scandal, "accidentally" labeling Republicans as Democrats because they said things Rupert disagreed with, etc.) Rupert's people have pulled, i don't think you can rule out the possibility that it was an attempt to discredit global warming.

---

Now who is believing in conspiracies. ;)

---

Is it a conspiracy when your business model seems to be "Ideology first and foremost, fuck the facts!"?

Quote:

---

Given the shitstorm that descended, you would have thought that Murdoch could have done without yet another publishing issue.

---

Maybe he should start by stop paying Rebekah Brooks.

Quote:

---

The Daily Telegraph reported that despite resigning from her position, Brooks remained on the company payroll and continued to receive her salary from News International, having been told by Rupert Murdoch to "to travel the world on him for a year".

---

She's still on the boards of some of Rupert's other papers. Clearly, the man doesn't give a shit about much.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

And you'd be wrong. I know of plenty of people who do not believe the climate is changing at all. They deny that the climate is currently getting warming to any degree (no pun intended). According to them, any data showing this is false.

Nor is this one or two lone nutters, but numerous individuals.

---

Ok, now this is depressing. I would love to know how they account for the seasons then, which are mini yearly climate changes in their own right.

---

That's different, that's not "climate change" that's normal seasonal variations. At least according to them. I maintain that Idiocracy is a documentary.

Concerning Murdoch, I'm betting NotW was not the only one involved in such dubious dealings.

I also just read the synopsis for Idiocracy. Yup, sounds like a documentary to me.

fookin politics

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuckerfan

A solar thermal plant covering 1,000 square miles would provide enough energy to meet all the current energy needs of the US, even accounting for periods when the sun wasn't shining on the plant. A 10,000 square mile plant would meet the world's needs. Nobody wants to build them though.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasol...ectrical_plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...power_stations

The thing about electricity, is that the peak use is often in the hot sunny afternoon, due to AC. Which is also the time that solar power is most abundant.

Germany, of all places, is crazy for solar panels, no doubt due to the evil big Government making solar power worth something. (you get the same rate for it as the big power plants charge)

The current problem big power problem in Germany? Too much electricity from solar on sunny days. Not too much to run the country, too much for the big power plants to make profits. It's a terribly ironic situation.

There is a terrible humor in the current state of climate change.

It's kind of weird seeing the latest reports from the IPCC, which have been seized on by both sides a s supporting their own causes.

The biggest problem being the lack of rise in the global average temperature which was totally predicted and didn't happen. The lack of rise is being put down to the oceans sucking up the energy instead.

Sometimes, I do wonder if both sides are spending more time self-reinforcing themselves than actually looking for reasons, because you know... reasons.

Strangely enough even though the Arctic is losing ice, Antarctica is gaining it and on balance it evens out and I'm still waiting for the Himalayan glaciers to melt.

The problem is that year to year and storm to storm is not the way to measure climate change. It is being measured by gases in the atmosphere and average increases over the century and expectations for the next century.

We had a problem in my group of dedicated environmentalist not understanding that events like hurricanes Sandy and Katrina do not prove anthropogenic climate change. So it is not surprising how much misinterpretation is out there and how easy it is for people that are still trying to fight making changes to find issues and talking points. The Greens as a group often misspeak. We are far from a polished group. Every time a non-scientist likes me talks there is a good chance we will misspeak. And I consider myself more knowledgeable than most on this subject and am well aware at how un-qualified I am. I also laugh at the other side though when they quote 100s of scientist that don't agree with the IPCC and it turns out most of them are Medical Doctors or other fields with no training to evaluate the IPCC findings.

Anthropogenic climate change is pretty much a reality. Over 50-100 years it will increase storms, it will cause rising waters. The IPCC has upped its estimate to 95% likely if I recall the latest report correctly.

The suggestions that have been getting made for the last 20 years now are still good and will help countries and individuals in the long term.

I'll repeat:
Cleaner cars, trucks, ships & planes
Much more efficient appliances
Better built new homes
Cleaner coal
Solar
Wind
New safer nukes
Better transmission lines
More trees
Geothermal heating
LED lighting
Natural Gas power plants

Step by step and year by year and planned out for the next 50 years or so and we can slow the increase temperature rise. At the same time these are all good options that will save people money, cut trade deficits for fuels, reduce air pollution and water pollution in general and really have almost no downside.

The appliances are a huge area. My fridge died 2 years ago after hurricane Irene. The new fridge uses about half the wattage of my old fridge that died. That fridge used less than half of my first fridge that was built in the 70s. Heating systems are far more efficient than 30 years ago. There are some excellent options for water heating common to Europe that are very rare still in the US. Tankless Water Heaters (On-Demand Water Heaters) should become a mandate for new building in the US. They are greatly more efficient.

Solar panels at fully unsubsidized costs pay for themselves in the North East of the US in about 10-11 years and should probably become close to standard for building. In the southwest the payoff time should be significantly better. At a guess, I would think 7-8 years but that is a guess.

Wind farms with new state of the art transmission lines to population centers can add greatly to shutting down the oldest dirtiest power plants.

Nuclear Fission is a tough sell at this point and Fusion is still a far off dream. So I won't waste time on these.

Clean Coal can be done, it is not actually clean but it would greatly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions compared current coal plants. China in particular is a current example of how damaging unclean coal is to air quality and cleaning it up would save money on health issues along with the positive effects for Global Climate change.

Natural Gas has its own issues but in the meantime the US has been bringing online a lot of natural gas power generation and it is helping reduce our giant footprint when it comes to greenhouse gases.

Cars: I sadly put about 20,000 miles per year on my car. I am driving a Toyota Prius currently and already have over 65000 miles logged. At an average of 46 mpg versus my Ford Focus which gave me only 23 mpg I have used 1413 gallons of gas instead of 2826 gallons. At about $3.35 per gallon I have saved $4734 so far. The Prius cost me about $3500 more than another similar size car with around the 28 MPG so that would only mean a savings of 908 gallons or $3043. So I will break even later this year or compared to my Ford Focus I already have. So if you put on a high number of miles/kilometers each year and keep your cars on average for 5 or more years, you can help yourself while helping the environment. My understanding is gas in far more expensive in Europe and the UK and thus fuel efficiency would of course have a better pay off. The new clean diesel vehicles with excellent fuel efficiency, hybrids and just efficient standard gasoline engines are all great choices people can make to help fight climate change and help themselves. Now at this point the electric cars probably only save money for the small number of people putting crazy mileage on their cars. I haven't crunched any numbers for these as they are out of the price range I am willing to spend so far.

Maybe the second biggest reason to pursue these changes is to reduce reliance of purchasing foreign oil. I've always felt this was big issue.

Fun little tool from the BBC: Fuel price calculator: How much do you pay?
Also shows average Price Per Gallon for gas in the UK as $8.22 or £1.38 per liter.

So for people that drive even 8500 miles per year in the UK, the payoff for gas efficiency is dramatic.

If we really wanted to "reverse" global warming, it would take about three days to put the NH into an ice age.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Fun little tool from the BBC: Fuel price calculator: How much do you pay?
Also shows average Price Per Gallon for gas in the UK as $8.22 or £1.38 per liter.

So for people that drive even 8500 miles per year in the UK, the payoff for gas efficiency is dramatic.

---

Don't forget that about 70% of that price is all HMRC revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Fun little tool from the BBC: Fuel price calculator: How much do you pay?
Also shows average Price Per Gallon for gas in the UK as $8.22 or £1.38 per liter.

So for people that drive even 8500 miles per year in the UK, the payoff for gas efficiency is dramatic.

---

Don't forget that about 70% of that price is all HMRC revenue.

---

That is New Jersey cigarette level of taxes. Though NYC is far worse. I actually like the high taxes on gasoline. It encourages fuel efficiency. But it is not a popular view.

That's an excellent post above What Exit? It hits on lots of important stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí

That's an excellent post above What Exit? It hits on lots of important stuff.

---

Thank you, now if only we could get people and nations to sign on to these basically common sense ideas.

Yes, if only we could get everybody to reduce emissions. Because his global warming is seriously getting out of hand.

Quote:

---

Silvia Christen, executive director of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, said most ranchers she had spoken to were reporting that 20 to 50 percent of their herds had been killed.

"I have never heard of anything like it," she said. "And none of the ranchers I have talked to can remember anything like it."

---

RapidCityJournal

Quote:

---

The South Dakota Stock Growers Association estimated that 15 percent to 20 percent of all cattle were killed in some parts of the state. Some ranchers reported that they lost half or more of their herds.

---

NBC News

If we don't stop heating up the planet, one can only imagine how horrific things will become. I mean, the IPCC, Al Gore and many prominent scientists have been trying to warn people, and people just act like nothing is happening.

What will it take to shock people and get them to realize the horror of global warming?

Sadly, I think it will take something very dramatic. More severe droughts and storms while probably related can not really be directly tied to greenhouse gas increases and Climate change. It will probably take a horrendous event to finally convince people to act. I'm thinking something along the lines of a large ice shelf breaking off Greenland or Antarctica and causing massing flooding.

... and even then the naysayers will try to fight the change.

So I see from the linked articles that F-X was being sarcastic but again early severe snow storms no more prove or disprove Anthropogenic Climate Change then droughts, heat-waves and storms like Sandy or Katrina prove it. Also Global Warming was a misnomer from the get go and a mistake. It is climate change that is causing the average temperature of the world to slowly go up. But it does mean uniformed changes, some areas will not get warmer.

The proof the world is getting warmer is pretty clear. The latest scientific studies indicate it is about 90-95% likely to be influences by humans. The chances are very good that a large reduction of green house gas emissions will minimize the adverse changes. The actual act of reducing said gases is not really that expensive or hard compared to protecting our massive number of large coastal cities.

But no storm proves or disproves Anthropogenic Climate Change!

Adding some links and cites:
http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html

Quote:

---

The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

---

Quote:

---

The study went one step further, asking the authors of these papers to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2000 papers were rated and among those that discussed the cause of recent global warming, 97 per cent endorsed the consensus that it is caused by humans.

---

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

The proof the world is getting warmer is pretty clear. The latest scientific studies indicate it is about 90-95% likely to be influences by humans. The chances are very good that a large reduction of green house gas emissions will minimize the adverse changes. The actual act of reducing said gases is not really that expensive or hard compared to protecting our massive number of large coastal cities.

---

Err, the last main study done by the IPCC themselves said that Global Temperature had been steady over the last few years, not rising and they are currently at a loss to explain why.

Now don't you start bringing in facts to the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

The proof the world is getting warmer is pretty clear. The latest scientific studies indicate it is about 90-95% likely to be influences by humans. The chances are very good that a large reduction of green house gas emissions will minimize the adverse changes. The actual act of reducing said gases is not really that expensive or hard compared to protecting our massive number of large coastal cities.

---

Err, the last main study done by the IPCC themselves said that Global Temperature had been steady over the last few years, not rising and they are currently at a loss to explain why.

---

Did I say otherwise? Did I not stress that the measurement needed to be taken over a long time? If I did somewhere I apologize but I thought I was making it clear the measurement is over many decades and not years or big storms.

http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbcs...umn-snowstorms

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

So silly to just for the fairly simple solution of:
Cleaner cars, trucks, ships & planes
Much more efficient appliances
Better built new homes
Cleaner coal
Solar
Wind
New safer nuke
Better transmission lines
More trees
Etc.

It's too hard too do the right thing isn't it?

---

You are right. We need to change our normal routine habits and we will able to reduce global warming..Just plant more trees and see the results

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWatson

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

So silly to just for the fairly simple solution of:
Cleaner cars, trucks, ships & planes
Much more efficient appliances
Better built new homes
Cleaner coal
solar panel
Wind
New safer nuke
Better transmission lines
More trees
Etc.

It's too hard too do the right thing isn't it?

---

You are right. We need to change our normal routine habits and we will able to reduce global warming..Just plant more trees and see the results

---

What you guys think about global warming?

Some people want a warmer world.

The Soviet Scientist Who Dreamed of Melting the Arctic with a 55 Mile Dam

Until I read that I never knew permafrost could be over 500 meters deep.

I would have thought parts of Siberia/Antarctica would have very deep levels of permafrost.