Thawing permafrost could release vast amounts of carbon, accelerate climate change by the end of this century

Aug 23, 2011 by Dan Krotz
A sink becomes a source, as revealed by these two simulations of net CO2 fluxes due to climate change at the end of 21st century. The control simulation on the left did not include permafrost processes. The permafrost simulation on the right included processes that depict how carbon accumulates in soil and how it decomposes. In the latter simulation, large carbon losses are seen in central Canada where substantial permafrost stocks exist that are vulnerable to warming. Units are in grams of carbon per square meter per year.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Billions of tons of carbon trapped in high-latitude permafrost may be released into the atmosphere by the end of this century as the Earth’s climate changes, further accelerating global warming, a new computer modeling study indicates.

The study also found that in high-latitude regions could shift from being a sink to a source of dioxide by the end of the 21st century as the soil warms in response to .

The research was led by Charles Koven of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). He conducted the research with a team of scientists from France, Canada, and the United Kingdom while he was a postdoctoral researcher at France’s Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement. The modeling was conducted at a supercomputing facility run by France’s Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission.

Their study was published in last week’s online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Their findings counter results from a comparison of models that was included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 fourth assessment report. The comparison found that climate change will spark a growth in high-latitude vegetation, which will pull in more carbon from the atmosphere than thawing will release.

But unlike earlier models, the new model includes detailed processes of how carbon accumulates in high-latitude soil over millennia, and how it’s released as permafrost thaws. Because it includes these processes, the model begins with much more carbon in the soil than previous models. It also better represents the carbon’s vulnerability to decomposition as the soil warms.

As a result, the new model found that the increase in carbon uptake by more vegetation will be overshadowed by a much larger amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.

High-latitude soil such as permafrost hold vast quantities of carbon that could speed up global warming if it enters the atmosphere. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Including permafrost processes turns out to be very important,” says Koven, who joined Berkeley Lab’s Sciences Division as a staff scientist earlier this year. “Previous models tended to dramatically underestimate the amount of soil carbon at high latitudes because they lacked the processes of how carbon builds up in soil. Our model starts off with more carbon in the soil, so there is much more to lose with global warming.”

Koven and colleagues set out to estimate how much carbon dioxide and methane (which contains carbon) could be released by boreal and Arctic land ecosystems as a result of climate change. These regions are crucial to the global carbon cycle because they are rich in soil organic carbon, which has built up in frozen soils and peat layers over thousands of years.

Much of this carbon is presently trapped and not cycling. But scientists believe that some of it could be released in response to warming and become a positive feedback to global climate change. At stake is an estimated 2,167 petagrams of carbon in all layers of high-latitude soil, which is more than two trillion U.S. tons.

The scientists modified a land surface ecosystem model called ORCHIDEE to account for how carbon behaves at different layers, such as at the surface versus 30 centimeters below ground. They also accounted for the rate of soil carbon decomposition as a function of temperature at the freeze-thaw boundary, which sinks deeper and deeper as soil warms. Other improvements include soil physics that more realistically capture the effects of organic matter on carbon. Most other models do not have all of these phenomena.

To determine how these processes affect the balance of carbon dioxide and methane in high-latitude soils, the scientists ran four simulations from 1860 to 2100, each with a different assortment of processes. They added in a middle-of-the-road climate change scenario that caused high-latitude surface soil to rise 8 degrees Celsius by 2100, which is much greater than the global average.

The simulations revealed a climate-induced loss of between 25 and 85 petagrams of carbon, depending on the processes included. The best estimate is from a simulation that includes all of the permafrost soil processes. It found that 62 petagrams of soil carbon will be released into the by 2100, or about 68 billion U.S. tons. This release of carbon is equivalent to an additional 7.5 years of global anthropogenic emissions at today’s rate.

The simulation also found only a slight increase in methane release, which is contrary to previous predictions.

“People have this idea that permafrost thaw will release methane,” says Koven. “But whether carbon comes out as or methane is dependent on hydrology and other fine-scale processes that models have a poor ability to resolve. It’s possible that warming at high latitudes leads to drying in many regions, and thus less methane emissions, and in fact this is what we found.”

Koven adds that there are large uncertainties in the model that need to be addressed, such as the role of nitrogen feedbacks, which affect plant growth. And he says that more research is needed to better understand the processes that cause carbon to be released in permanently frozen, seasonally frozen, and thawed soil layers. Researchers in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division are focusing on improving global climate model representations of these processes under two Department of Energy-funded projects.

Explore further: Selective logging takes its toll on mammals, amphibians

More information: The study, “Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming,” was published August 18 in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Related Stories

Thawing permafrost likely to boost global warming

Sep 01, 2008

The thawing of permafrost in northern latitudes, which greatly increases microbial decomposition of carbon compounds in soil, will dominate other effects of warming in the region and could become a major force promoting the ...

Arctic soil reveals climate change clues

Oct 08, 2008

Frozen arctic soil contains nearly twice the greenhouse-gas-producing organic material as was previously estimated, according to recently published research by University of Alaska Fairbanks scientists.

Researcher seeks 'missing piece' in climate change models

Feb 13, 2007

To most people, soil is just dirt. But to microbiologists, it is a veritable zoo of bacteria, fungi and nematodes. It's also a vast carbon dioxide factory. As these microorganisms consume carbon-based materials found in soil, ...

Permafrost carbon content double the old estimates

Sep 12, 2008

New research indicates that the amount of frozen organic carbon locked away in the world’s permafrost regions – a major potential source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) – is double ...

Recommended for you

Selective logging takes its toll on mammals, amphibians

7 hours ago

The selective logging of trees in otherwise intact tropical forests can take a serious toll on the number of animal species living there. Mammals and amphibians are particularly sensitive to the effects of ...

User comments : 77

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Guy_Underbridge
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
Thawing permafrost could release vast amounts of carbon, accelerate climate change...

...it'll make everything real muddy, too.
JDoddsGW
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2011
What garbage.
UNLESS you add more warming energy the addition of more carbon will do absolutely NOTHING to the temperature.
Use your common sense if you have any.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2011
There was another story in just the past few weeks, which wasn't covered here on physorg to my knowledge, which said the exact opposite of this story. They looked at ice and sediment cores and concluded that previous warming periods did not lead to what the modelers are predicting above. I would tend to say that field samples trump models, but then again, cores aren't the easiest thing to interpret sometimes either.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 23, 2011
Quick give us more money so we can make predictions so far into the future that they can't be checked.
ecotek2u
3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2011
I don't like this story. It makes me feel uncomfortable about my enormous carbon footprint. BANG! BANG! Now I feel better.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2011
Yet another grossly sensationalist article based on sheer speculation from another MODEL. GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Actual Field Studies: Flanagan, L.B. and Syed, K.H. 2011. Stimulation of both photosynthesis and respiration in response to warmer and drier conditions in a boreal peatland ecosystem. Global Change Biology 17 "contrary to previous predictions, both ecosystem photosynthesis and respiration showed similar increases in response to warmer and drier conditions...the ecosystem remained a strong net sink for CO2...current net CO2 uptake rates were much higher than carbon accumulation in peat determined from analyses of the relationship between peat age and cumulative carbon stock... significant net carbon sequestration could continue for decades at this site and help to reduce the positive feedback of climate change on increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration." (continued next post)
pianoman
2.8 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
While reading this it makes me wonder--- when and where did all this carbon come from and how did it get to where it now? Thanks.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2011
continued: Payette, S., Delwaide, A., Caccianiga, M. and Beauchemin, M. 2004. Accelerated thawing of subarctic peatland permafrost over the last 50 years. Geophysical Research Letters 31 E. coast Hudson Bay permafrost melting between 1957 & 2003: "contrary to current expectations, the melting of permafrost caused by recent climate change does not [our italics] transform the peatland to a carbon-source ecosystem." Instead, "rapid terrestrialization exacerbates carbon-sink conditions and tends to balance the local carbon budget."

There are probably others, but I hope I've made the point - hypothesis, assumptions, models are all fine and dandy, but they are utterly meaningless (or worse) unless they are able to be accurately calibrated against real world measurements. This becomes especially true when the model assumptions are based on OTHER model's assumptions, or on other studies 'conclusions' which go far beyond what the data actually shows...
Pete1983
3.9 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2011
Oh noes! If we try to do something about climate change, my belief in an infinitely expanding financial system may not be possible! I must be allowed to lay waste to all around me! Not that I can afford a Ferrari, but if I could, I'd buy one!

------

I just don't get why this is such a problem... Say we do clean up our act, live more sustainably, and end up with a lot less pollution around us. Just SAY we did OK? Then say we found out we were TOTALLY wrong about climate change, and we didn't actually HAVE to do anything at all. Does that mean people who were against making the world a better place say:

"SEE! I told you! We didn't have to make the world a better place! We could have just left things as they were!"

Cmon people! Just do it anyway! We got rid of leaded petrol, that was good right? This is just the same on a larger scale.

Although that being said, I do feel sorry that some of you are labelled "denialists", when you're trying to discuss this. Labels aren't fun.
Guy_Underbridge
3.6 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2011
A: 'This hole we're digging is getting pretty deep.. should we shore up the sides so it don't cave in and kill us?'
B: 'That's a BS story the timber vendors invented to sell more wood. Keep digging'

C: 'Yeah, besides, how many people do you know, alive today, have been killed in a caved-in hole?'

D: 'Hey look!, I've uncovered a bone!'
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2011
Cmon people! Just do it anyway! We got rid of leaded petrol, that was good right? This is just the same on a larger scale.


We already are. Natural market factors work in favor of increased efficiency in homes, transportation and business. In addition to market factors, the existing Clean Air Act has been quite effective at reducing proven pollutants. Same goes for water, to an even greater extent. The US has greatly reduced pollution in the past 50 years, and continues to do so. The programs we have are working and are cost-effective. China, India, Mexico and other developing nations need to stop fooling around with Kyoto type schemes and simply follow what we are already doing, in a measured rational way that makes sense for them economically. They are doing that, but it takes time. It took us time too.

I'm not a denier. I'm not an activist for either extreme view.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 24, 2011
A: 'This hole we're digging is getting pretty deep.. should we shore up the sides so it don't cave in and kill us?'
B: 'That's a BS story the timber vendors invented to sell more wood. Keep digging'

C: 'Yeah, besides, how many people do you know, alive today, have been killed in a caved-in hole?'

D: 'Hey look!, I've uncovered a bone!'


Straw man arguement, fearmongering and an appeal to emotion, all in one short post. Nice work. Poor debate skills, but tallented propagandizement.
Guy_Underbridge
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2011
Straw man arguement, fearmongering and an appeal to emotion, all in one short post. Nice work. Poor debate skills, but tallented propagandizement.


Thanks. and my spelling was all good, to.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2011
touchet
GSwift7
2.4 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2011
Besides, looks like Svensmark is correct after all. Study from CERN with over 60 coauthors is due to hit "Nature" tomorrow. This will really shake things up.
Pete1983
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2011
I'm not a denier. I'm not an activist for either extreme view.


I think the terms "denier" and "denialist", should be reserved for those who dismiss this without any scientific reasoning. It's a pretty stupid debate anyway really, which is why I've found myself falling back to the stance of "can't we just do it anyway?", and ignoring the issue of whether or not AGW is happening.
Howhot
3 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2011
The problem with your position is you are neither here nor there. I'm on the side that AGW is as deadly to human existence as freak comet extinction event would be; only mankind is in control of this extinction event.

Your being hood winked by the anti-science teabagger crowd if you don't believe in AGW (ie "Man made global warming").

Pete1983
3.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2011
@Howhot - Oh I'm still on the side of AGW. We're pumping a lot of crap into the atmosphere and considering the scale we're doing it on, I can't imagine it isn't having some kind of effect.

However the argument I'm using is specifically for the anti-intellectualism crowd. By shifting the debate away from AGW one can much more quickly get to the reasons why people are not in favour of the theory. I.e, when you say "why don't we just do it anyway?", you'll quickly discover that their issue with this is not AGW itself, but an economic and political issue.

Basically (and I mean this seriously), many seem to think that attempting to deal with AGW is an attempt to undermine free-market capitalism by giving more power to government, and they think those of us for this are commie spys.

In non-US countries (like mine), it's the same, it's just that it stops before the commie bit. People REALLY like their exploitative capitalistic system even when it's screwing them over... Funny...
Howhot
2.4 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2011
I understand what you saying, but do you know who you are saying it to? Most of your opposition in this forum are paid for righties that post right wing positions for a fee. Good money I guess if you post enough.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2011
I understand what you saying, but do you know who you are saying it to? Most of your opposition in this forum are paid for righties that post right wing positions for a fee. Good money I guess if you post enough.


Oh I doubt they would really bother here... but maybe. It doesn't really bother me though, I'm more interested in the particle physics discussions. I do enjoy a bit of anti-trolling though.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2011
@Pete1983 - your idea would be great if things were that simple. The problem is that they're not and there are a lot of far more productive ways that the funds could be spent - and I am not referring to financial gains here. There are many things that kill or harm huge numbers of people right now, not 'maybe sometime in the far future.'

So if you honestly wanted to make the world a better place as you claim, you would not want resources diverted to things that are highly questionable.

GSwift7 is exactly right also about natural market forces resulting in the very increases in efficiency and decreases in pollution that we all want anyhow.

Meanwhile, I do believe that howhot is either projecting, or mired in tinfoil hat conspiracy theory land.
Pete1983
3.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2011
@WhoWants - Well I've really given up on the world being a better place. I'm waiting for full societal collapse, in the full Roman sense.

That being said, I do not agree with market forces having an effect here. I believe the situation would be even worse if we had a full free-market economy, and (honestly) I unfortunately believe government intervention is necessary in this, and many other cases.

However! I do completely agree that we have more direct, more apparent, and more current issues that require solving right now. Many could be solved right now if we had the will to do so.

Yet we do not. It's depressing learning about the world as you get older. It's not that everything is "completely screwed" or anything like that, it's simply a long series of minor disappointments. You read through huxley, orwell, etc etc, and it just continues to get worse.

So, you just stop caring. It's actually quite nice.

So I'll take part in the conversation, but I have no investment in the outcome
Pete1983
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2011
*I should clarify the second sentence there -

"I do not agree market forces will have ENOUGH of an effect here."

Also all statements regarding economic systems are all qualified with "I believe". Economics is simply not enough of a science to say much of anything for certain, and is often more a conflict of ideologies. We can discuss those ideologies, but any proper mathematical analysis of economics theory shows how unsure we are of it.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2011
I.e, when you say "why don't we just do it anyway?", you'll quickly discover that their issue with this is not AGW itself, but an economic and political issue


Yes, that's it exactly. However, we're already doing it. The US is leaps and bounds ahead of 99% of the rest of the world in almost every way, when it comes to air and water quality measures. Many countries still use leaded gas, for example. The process we've been using to reduce polution for the past 50 years has been highly effective. Drastic measures aren't really needed here. It's time for the developing countries to do their part too. I don't think it's fair to ask them to do it a way that's economically crippling though. I also don't think we can afford to fund their efforts. China has the means to do what needs to be done. It's just going to take time for them to do it. It seems like they are trying, just slowly.
GSwift7
2.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2011
Most of your opposition in this forum are paid for righties that post right wing positions for a fee. Good money I guess if you post enough


Do you realize how crazy that is? The professional PR groups don't both with little sites like this. They're focused on the web sites with much higher traffic than this one, and they post paid-for banner ads on those sites. There aren't any such ads on this site. This site would be a waste of money for them.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2011
That being said, I do not agree with market forces having an effect here. I believe the situation would be even worse if we had a full free-market economy, and (honestly) I unfortunately believe government intervention is necessary in this, and many other cases.


I didn't mean to take that idea to that much of an extreme view. I'm not living in some fantasy land where free markets are the answer to everything. It takes community action and government regulation to keep them honest. I was just saying that if the government raises automobile mileage standards, people will buy a more efficient car as long as it's affordable. People will buy a more efficient heating and air unit. People will insulate their attic. Those little things do add up to progress as long as those options are available. That's what I meant by market forces. I know that I certainly like my electric bill to be as small as possible.
GSwift7
3.1 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2011
I do not agree market forces will have ENOUGH of an effect here


Yeah, certainly. Fortunately, we already have some of the strongest laws regarding public health and environment in the world. In some areas we have the best, and in other areas we're close to it. Most developed nations are right around the same level when it comes to those kinds of laws and standards. For example, we all buy cars with about the same gas mileage standards. Hondas and Toyotas are basically the same, no matter where you buy one, though the US has higher standards for vehicle emissions than most of Europe. You can't bring most super-cars into the US without adding some major exhaust upgrades, for example.
Norezar
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2011
Global warming is the boogyman hiding under the bed.

Shootist
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2011
I don't like this story. It makes me feel uncomfortable about my enormous carbon footprint. BANG! BANG! Now I feel better.


I'm more concerned with your submission to group think.
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2011
Straw man arguement, fearmongering and an appeal to emotion, all in one short post. Nice work. Poor debate skills, but tallented propagandizement.


Thanks. and my spelling was all good, to.


Until now, that is.
Pete1983
not rated yet Aug 29, 2011
@gswift - while your posts are clearheaded, it's difficult to reply to them as there are so many!

Anyway, just responding to the US doing "so much better" than the rest of the world in regards to energy usage.

While I agree that you are ahead in some areas in regard to effiency, the US still uses a huge amount of energy per capita. Also a large amount of the gains in effeciency have been in areas that are simply not possible in poorer countries.

Hmm... you probably agree with the above, and there just aren't enough characters available to cover everything.

Ah well, I can see from your posts that you know this to be a tricky topic, also sorry for the earlier extreme free-market suggestion, I find it's simpler to discuss these things in the extremes, and then whittle down to the important points.

Who knows, maybe someone will invent cold-fusion tomorrow and none of this will matter. Hope springs eternal.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2011
Anyway, just responding to the US doing "so much better" than the rest of the world in regards to energy usage


Another straw man argument. That isn't what I said at all. I said that the US has very good clean air and water standards. I didn't mention energy use. Though I could make a good argument in that regard too. We consume way more, but that doesn't mean that we use it inefficiently. Our heating and air units are relatively good. We build homes and offices with high priority towards insulation. We have lots of room to improve though. It depends who you are comparing us too also. Does the average home in Europe have tripple pane glass windows? What is the average level of attic insulation? How common is foam wall insulation there? Would the average EU home appliance meet Energy Star compliance standards? I don't know the answer to those questions, so I'll reserve judgement. I WAS only talking about air and water pollution in my previous posts.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2011
@GSwift - Sorry, I shouldn't have stated energy, I was talking effiency in general, and it was pretty late when I wrote it. Either way, not comparing directly, but even in the case of cleaner air and water, again, these are things that poorer nations are going to find harder to implement. It's going to be an interesting few decades.
Who_Wants_to_Know
3 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2011
re:Pete1983 "It's depressing learning about the world as you get older."

I have to say that seems sad. Many folks, as they grow up, realize that they can't control the world. That while there are a lot of very sad things out there, overall for most people the world is a better place than it used to be not so long ago, & that it is rapidly improving.

That while they probably can't make the world a better place (a few manage with innovation or science discoveries!), what they CAN do is make their own lives & the lives of many around them better. Some go even further & recognize that their efforts indirectly spread, thus improving things perhaps further than they realize - pay it forward & smiles are contagious, etc.

Regardless, there is major value in being thankful for what we have - it could be a heck of a lot worse & was only a few decades or centuries ago.

'An optimist thinks that this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is afraid that that is actually the case'
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2011
@WWtK - Yeah it does get a bit sad, and perhaps it is pessimistic, however I'm quite convinced that any "good" one can do (pay it forward, smiles, inventions, etc) is only localised good and is ultimately destoyed by stupidity and greed overall. I've made my peace with it, in the sense that I don't really believe in good or evil, but I believe idiocy and greed destroy so many lives so needlessly, it's impossible to be optimistic.

I tried some Ayn Rand objectivism following a lot of philosophical study, but that doesn't hold up to scrutiny very well. I found a lot of peace in the work of Alan Watts and Joseph Campbell, who are fantastic, and it gets you very in the "now", yet existence itself is still a horrible thing for a mind to deal with. Reality is a pain that we all seem to bear and I find it so odd that people fear and run from death. I cannot even imagine something as wonderful as an end! I've made it past age 25, which was a goal I set some time ago. I'm about done now.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2011
So you need more things to be pessimistic about. The crazy non-believers of global warming are one. They have their minds made up, and no amount of debate will change (or enlighten) to the fact that we are dumping Giga-tons of CO2 greenhouse gas into the sky and it's going to kill us. Not only us, but the whole freaking planet!

@Pete1983 you made it to 25. Are you going to make it to 75? Will you want to?

Texas is a prime example of global warming effects. It's only 2011, and on Al-Gore's hockey stick graph, it's only a quarter of the way there.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2011
So you need more things to be pessimistic about. The crazy non-believers of global warming are one. They have their minds made up, and no amount of debate will change (or enlighten) to the fact that we are dumping Giga-tons of CO2 greenhouse gas into the sky and it's going to kill us. Not only us, but the whole freaking planet!


Exactly! Unfortunately it's near impossible to fight stupidity, and I'm hoping for complete societal collapse in as short a time as possible. If you live in a democratic country, vote for whoever can screw it up fastest, as ultimately that will lead to a better world in a shorter time-frame.

@Pete1983 you made it to 25. Are you going to make it to 75? Will you want to?

Absolutely not. I've made my peace with the foolishness of this world, but that doesn't mean I want to put up with it forever. I'll try to make it past 30, but I'm not sure if there is any point. I've fought long enough to know you can't win, so surrender is preferrable.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2011
So you need more things to be pessimistic about. The crazy non-believers of global warming are one. They have their minds made up, and no amount of debate will change (or enlighten) to the fact that we are dumping Giga-tons of CO2 greenhouse gas into the sky and it's going to kill us. Not only us, but the whole freaking planet!

@Pete1983 you made it to 25. Are you going to make it to 75? Will you want to?

Texas is a prime example of global warming effects. It's only 2011, and on Al-Gore's hockey stick graph, it's only a quarter of the way there.


Oh please. It's talk like this that's insane. I'm a scientist, and I happily believe what good solid science tells us - and that ain't AGW, at least not so far. It has clearly been hotter during this interglacial, & neither our rate nor amount of warming is anything unusual. Scientifically that means that the null hypothesis still stands, e.g., it's natural variability & zero reason to think otherwise.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2011
So you need more things to be pessimistic about. The crazy non-believers of global warming are one. They have their minds made up, and no amount of debate will change (or enlighten) to the fact that we are dumping Giga-tons of CO2 greenhouse gas into the sky and it's going to kill us. Not only us, but the whole freaking planet!

@Pete1983 you made it to 25. Are you going to make it to 75? Will you want to?

Texas is a prime example of global warming effects. It's only 2011, and on Al-Gore's hockey stick graph, it's only a quarter of the way there.


Yes, we ARE putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere - but NOT relative to the total amount of atmo, which is why CO2 is still only about 360 ppm - parts per MILLION. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and there are massive amounts of H20 in our atmo. So much that its effects utter dwarf that of CO2. Even in the IPCC, a doubling of CO2 has little effect, its the hypothesized H20 changes that make the difference.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2011
@WWtK - Just because we are talking PPM doesn't mean that it can't have an effect. Although I would agree that there is certainly too much focus on CO2 and ignorance of other factors.

I think it's more of a question of, do you think that the amount of general crap we're putting into the atmosphere isn't having an effect?

I'm quite confident that it does. Just look at how much mercury a coal power plant puts out. There are many many factors here, and the main problem isn't AGW itself, the main problem is the unchecked greed that capitalism naturally promotes.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2011
And IF AGW were occurring to any significant extent, it wouldn't be showing up just in Texas. All we're seeing is the expected effects of La Nina, which always tends to make the region Tx is in both hotter and much drier.

Meanwhile, key tenets of the AGW hypothesis are being blown left and right, but they just change the goal posts to something else that isn't even falsifiable (e.g., not scientific). No tropical 'hot spot,' no sig. temp increase past 15 yrs, oceans not warming & sea level rise rate slowing, the 'missing heat,' greater radiation into space than possible w/ AGW, Arctic has been ice free several times in past 10K years, worldwide trop. cyclone levels at historic lows, global biomass significantly increased along with tree growth, coral & shells grow better with increased CO2, dust & soot = 35% of warming attributed to AGW, CO2 residence time far less than expected, cosmic ray flux sig. affects cloud cover, plants & phytoplankton emit aerosols, it just goes on and on!!
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2011
I think it's more of a question of, do you think that the amount of general crap we're putting into the atmosphere isn't having an effect?


Yes, ppm levels may have an effect. The point is that other known factors have a vastly large effect. Meanwhile, CO2 is plant food, used to create the oxygen we breath. We exhale it in every breath - it is in no way a pollutant. It isn't a toxic heavy metal like mercury and such comparisons are apples and... well, toothbrushes. Apparently nature emits ~70% of all mercury, USA power plants ~1%. http://www.washin...agebreak It's the availability of cheap abundant reliable energy that has allowed us to drastically reduce other pollution, and to care for the environment in general rather than scrapping for a base subsistence.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2011
@WWtK - You're talking about evidence on a timescale that doesn't allow for serious evidence to arise. The climate isn't changing terribly much now, yet what we do now effects the climate for at least the next 100 years.

I'm not saying it isn't complex, I agree that there are such a ridiculous number of factors that it's near impossible to make accurate predictions. However the predictions we are attempting to make do suggest that we're causing quite a few problems.

Also you can't reference a single state within the US as evidence for anything. There is a whole world out there you know...
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2011
Greed isn't a capitalism problem, it is a human nature problem that is seen every bit as much with any other system. But capitalism allows for the advancement of ALL far more than any other system that has ever been tried. The poorest people in the USA live far better than probably 90% of people in the world, thanks to capitalism and a semi-free market. The more the government meddles with the 'free market' the worse it makes things (excluding base oversight to prevent clear abuses like anti-trust activities, monopolies, fraud, etc). It also very much promotes individual responsibility, planning ahead, optimism, creativity, the ability to improve one's lot in life, and so on. All things that made the USA the country almost everyone wished they lived in. The more socialist we become, the less these things exist and the less others are interested in moving here.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2011
@Pete. I didn't reference Texas - howhot did and I was taking exception to that, just as you now did.

The whole point is that we don't know what we are doing now with CO2 emissions will have a negative effect in the future. The AGW models haven't predicted worth squat so far, so there is evidence that we can't accept their predictions for 25 yrs from now, let alone 50 or 100. As already noted, we haven't even seen anything unusual historically, so it makes no sense to assume "temperatture is changing as it always has in the past, therefore, our CO2 is causing it this time when we weren't emitting it at all during the same sort of changes in the past. The long term climate models are very much GIGO; Garbage In, Garbage Out. To overturn the entire world's social order, spend trillions, reduce all of our standards of living, kill millions, all based on nothing more is criminal - especially when waiting a decade or so will probably answer the question more definitively.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2011
Greed isn't a capitalism problem, it is a human nature problem that is seen every bit as much with any other system.


AH! See this is where you and I differ. I would argue that Greed is not necessarily part of "human nature", and that it certainly doesn't exist on the scale that it does today without capitalism propping it up.

I have not come across anyone who is against fighting AGW who is not also a proponent of capitalism. This I find very interesting.

Also capitalism only allows for the advancement of a few. Trickle down economics has been shown to be completely false numerous times. We continue to believe that without incentive people will just sit around all day never doing anything. The true evil of the world is capitalism, but so few are aware of this that we need to kill off a large amount of the human race to get past capitalsm. (Also please note that the opposite of capitalism is not communism. Apples and toothbrushes and a walrus.)
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2011
@Pete. I didn't reference Texas - howhot did and I was taking exception to that, just as you now did.

My apologies, it can get quite confusing on here sometimes.

Btw - the "kill off a large amount of the human race" thing - I mean we kill ourselves through the runaway train that is capitalism, I don't mean anything else by this.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2011
Whew! (re kill off large amount)

So, point me to an example of a better economic system that is now or has ever worked. History disagrees with you on greed - what society ever had significantly less?

Capitalism only allows advancement of a few? Why then do the poorest in the USA live better than about 90% of the rest of the world? Why do the majority of the poorest here have cars, live in homes bigger than middle class people in Britian, have cell phones, cable TV & often large flat screen at that, computer & internet, etc?

What do you see as the opposite of free market capitalism then?

To borrow (with slight modification) from Winston Churchill... 'Capitalism is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.'
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2011
AH! See this is where you and I differ. I would argue that Greed is not necessarily part of "human nature", and that it certainly doesn't exist on the scale that it does today without capitalism propping it up


Human babies show greed before they are old enough to know anything about politics. However I would agree that it's not a human nature problem, since many other species also show greed as a character trait. Of course bees and ants aren't a good example, but birds and mamals are usually greedy from birth. I think it's a trait encouraged by natural selection as more competitive individuals are more likely to feed and breed.

I've been giving you both 5's for the quality of the discussion. I do not think there's a right and wrong answer though. I think you'll find as many different opinions about that topic as there are philosophers.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2011
@swift/WWtK - First off, I LOVE that Churchill line, although I'm pretty sure it was democracy, not capitalism, however it works very well for both.

On Greed and Capitalism - How linked are these necessarily? I'm sure we can all agree that capitalism artificially inflates greed from whatever one could argue the "base" is, however I would go so far as to say that the normal level of human greed is so minor as to be nearly insignificant, when it is countered with altruism. Keep in mind that altruism doesn't work terribly well in our capitalistic system, in fact we actively ignore it's effects (if you're familiar with game-theory, I think this hypothesis might carry a bit more weight).

On capitalism itself - I'm certainly not advocating communism or anything like that. Capitalism is the best system we've come up with so far in regards to resource management and distribution, however I think it's close to being past it's use by date, if not already.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2011
I need to expand on that a bit further...

Are either of you guys programmers at all? An analogy that occurred to me is of pretty much any system that you build on a computer. When you first start building your application/system/whatever, it's great, because it's only doing what it needs to do. Further down the line it becomes bloated, and then further down the line you find yourself needing to rebuild the whole thing from scratch, because it's slowed down by it's own weight of legacy functions/support. Or, perhaps, there is a completely new way of doing things that is significantly better than the old way (actually a better example of this would just be going from snail-mail to e-mail).

So in the end I'm trying to make a case for a new system, and at this stage I'm interested in 2 ideas, that of a "molecular society", and also that of a "resource based economy". The 2 ideas do not mesh, yet they are seperate attempts to resolve the issues we face from capitalism.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2011
Yeah, it was democracy, not capitalism.

I'm not sure the computer analogy is appicable here, but it is food for thought. There are a TON of social studies about this, but I'm not sure how much credit I would give them. It's really hard to validate them. They could be right or not.

History is also of limited use. History repeats itself, right? But are we living in a time that is analogous to any other time in histoy? Which parts are the same and which parts are unique? Facebook and the Arab Spring, for example. Could that have ever happened before? I think we tread on unfurrowed ground here in more significant ways than not. I think the key is being agile and ready for change. The US system certainly isn't able to keep up with change fast enough, so in that sense it's like your bloatware analogy, but in other ways, our system is sef-healing and adaptable in a way that's independent of any individual. There are good sides as well as bad. I don't think history preditcs here.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2011
But are we living in a time that is analogous to any other time in histoy?


Now THAT is a big question isn't it? Change has run away from us so quickly that as a society we potentially cannot keep up. It's going to be an interesting few decades.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
@Pete, it's fun that you love the Churchill quote to & yep, it was democracy & that's why I put in the 'w/ slight changes' note. :0)

I don't agree that capitalism = more greed. Greed is a very relative term also, & unless taken to extremes isn't really a problem. Everyone has a different idea of just what is or isn't greedy too. As I'd said & Gswift pretty much did also, greed is innate in all living things. Try teaching very young kids about sharing! It's a very GOOD thing - responsible for ones ability to thrive, to plan ahead, for ambition, desire to create a safe environment for oneself and loved ones, to ensure that for the future, and so on.

Sense of fair play & altruism is also innate. I am somewhat familiar with game theory. Altruism isn't at all diminished by capitalism. In the past we were actually pretty good at taking care of those who needed it - charities were all over the place. They've drastically diminished the further we've devolved into Nanny State, socialism, etc.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
To this day, however, Americans are still one of the most generous worldwide. This would not be the case if capitalism diminished altruism - or inflated greed. Quite the opposite I'd think.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
I've done a little programming, and I rather agree that our regulatory/legislative system has become grossly bloated. I don't think that's a problem with capitalism, however, but with the unfortunate fact that governments like to expand. We have failed to stop the mission creep, and it has exploded recently - an exponential curve as people become more used to and therefore more complacent about over regulation. A large part of the problem is failure of schools to really teach what capitalism & free market is all about, & history of our founding & reason behind checks & balances, states rights, etc. Failure to teach civics. As a result we're being ploughed further into gov. intrusiveness & control of minutia, Nanny State, socialism. So I don't think we need to scrap capitalism - but we desperately need a return in the direction of actual capitalism & free markets. In other words, shred out the bloated code that way.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2011
To this day, however, Americans are still one of the most generous worldwide. This would not be the case if capitalism diminished altruism - or inflated greed. Quite the opposite I'd think.

Well... actually not so much methinks. Yes the US gives a lot as a gross amount; however as a percentage of GDP it's actually relatively low:
http://en.wikiped...ountries
Although thats understandable, particularly at the moment given the pretty massive internal problems you guys have right now.
In fact if you look at the 2 top countries and consider that probably 99% of Americans would call them socialist... That does make my earlier case seem a bit less controversial.
As much as I am willing to concede some points in regard to some of the good aspects of capitalism, surely we can agree that there are at least a few good aspects in regard to socialism? Perhaps?
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2011
I wonder why so many discussion threads about climate end up in a discussion about social/political/economic debate? Are they really related? They shouldn't be, but they are, I think. That's just my opinion, so it doesn't matter. Many of you have made good arguments in favor or in opposition to philosophical points of view, but they are WAAAY off topic here. I've given some 5/5 ratings, but the off topic comments aren't really productive. You aren't going to illuminate anyone in regard to political or social dogmas. People are usually too set in their ways to change by the time they are old enough to post on a site like this. You are wasting your keyboards I think. Some good comments here though. You should 5/5 each other for good comments on each side. It's great to have reasonable debate.
Pete1983
not rated yet Sep 07, 2011
@GSwift - I agree on all accounts. It was a really fun discussion to take part in.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
GSwift7
The US is leaps and bounds ahead of 99% of the rest of the world in almost every way, when it comes to air and water quality measures. Many countries still use leaded gas, for example
You are aware that the US passed laws to force the changes aren't you? That is it was NOT via capitalism and market forces. It was by legislative fiat. And over the politically dead bodies of exactly the same sort of politicians that are still claiming that it is somehow anti-American to stop polluting.

Drastic measures aren't really needed here
The end of lead in gasoline WAS by drastic measures. ALL the pumps had to be replaced with much more expensive pumps. Engines often had to be redesigned because they had been using the lead as a lubricant. New chemicals had to be used to maintain the octane rating for the cars that still needed it and the new cars had to handle lower octane fuel.

It's time for the developing countries to do their part too.
True.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
It has clearly been hotter during this interglacial
What interglacial?

An interglacial is the time between TWO glacial events. You cannot have and inter ANYTHING without a second occurrence. Where is that second glacial? Not here yet and it may not occur. It is an unwarranted assumption to claim that we are in an interglacial when most of the history of the Earth the half billion years has been without a lot of glaciation.

All stars on the Main Sequence warm up over time. Eventually the Earth will become unfit for life. So it is quite possible that there won't be another glacial period as long as humans exist.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
Even in the IPCC, a doubling of CO2 has little effect, its the hypothesized H20 changes that make the difference.
The primary effect of CO2 would be where the H2O vapor is not in the atmosphere. Which is where it is too cold for water vapor. Such as the Antarctic. The Arctic is irrelevant, because the ice is sea ice, to what I care about which is if the Antarctic glaciers melt the ocean levels will rise enough to drown all the ports. And it is CO2 which will can cause that.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
@Pete1983 you made it to 25. Are you going to make it to 75? Will you want to?
The alternative is so Permanent.

At 60 I want to make it to 75, and Beyond. Aging is not something we have to accept as something that we can't do anything about.

I want nanobots working for my good in me and I want them now. Or at least soon enough for me. There are way too many hot girls out there and they aren't interested in 60 year olds.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2011
People are usually too set in their ways to change by the time they are old enough to post on a site like this.
Horseshit. Learn to adapt. You are going to live a long time and the sooner you start adapting to it the better.

This isn't the Dark Ages when change was something you had to read about to see. It may be harder to deal with change as you age but that is at least partly because many people don't see any future in learning for them. My mother learned to program at sixty.

Keep learning.

Keep adapting.

Its a Red Queen's Race out there.

Ethelred
Pete1983
not rated yet Sep 08, 2011
Hi Ethelred, a lot to cover in yours posts there, I might just pick out a few quick bits and return to the larger questions later on.

"Its a Red Queen's Race out there."
Asimov and Vinge fan I'm going to guess? Vernor Vinge's "Deepness in the sky" is possibly my favourite space opera of all time.

"The alternative is so Permanent."
Yet not to be feared. Nothingness is what we are, and what we return to. It's all a great bit of nothing. Also I'm an INCREDIBLY jittery person and I can't imagine wanting to exist for terribly much longer. I did give up a few years ago, and with the help of friends and family endevoured to struggle onwards, however I'm quite convinced this was a mistake, as life is suffering. Also... you know... people tend to be horrible.

Although your statement:
"There are way too many hot girls out there and they aren't interested in 60 year olds." does provide some hope. Nanobots ftw I guess. Have you read "stone" by any chance? I forget the author, but great nano.
Pete1983
not rated yet Sep 08, 2011
After the mention of nothingness before, I simply cannot continue without linking to this video:
http://www.youtub...7P-Sgcrk

Actually after watching this again... I'm reminded that possibly I may be able to continue. The now is really quite wonderful when you can be calm about it... Also Alan Watts is simply the man. For similar I suggest Joseph Campbell, who took Jungs work on mythology another step forward to something I cannot even define.
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 09, 2011
Asimov and Vinge fan I'm going to guess?
I recently reread The Foundation Trilogy. My he had rather backwards attitude towards women. I think I have read one book by Vinge. Not sure. It was some Rapture of the Nerds thing besides my usual suspects.

Space OPERA. That would be E.E. Doc. Smith, the very first to write Space Opera. And his stuff creaks these days. Sooner or later I will reread Skylark Of Space. Again.

Yet not to be feared.
Only because there is little that can be done about it at the moment.

Also I'm an INCREDIBLY jittery person and I can't imagine wanting to exist for terribly much longer.
Try running. It can help with depression for some as well. I find it hard to NOT want to see what happens next.

however I'm quite convinced this was a mistake, as life is suffering.
Doesn't have to be. It is learning. Never stop learning as that is the real beginning of the end.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 09, 2011
Also... you know... people tend to be horrible.
Yes and do you want them to win by being that way? That is one reason I take on internet trolls. MUCH safer than taking on real predators and you don't actually have to be crazy like fictional heroes to do it. Just stubborn.

Have you read "stone"


http://en.wikiped...novel%29

No. And that Wiki isn't much of an inducement to do so. I have gotten tired of anti-heroes that are really just plain assholes. Gradisil is the only thing at the library and I was looking at it very recently and decided that I would take a pass. I am not fond of multi-generational books. They tend to have no characters that stick around long enough to hate or like.

I have been reading these

http://en.wikiped...e_novels

http://en.wikiped...n_Empire

http://en.wikiped...rity_Sky

But the two books are all Charlie is going to write. He insists the Universe is broken.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 09, 2011
There are rather a lot of modern space operas these days.

I'm reminded that possibly I may be able to continue.
Depression is chemical AND a matter of fixating on it.

Alan Watts discusses Nothing
There is no such thing as nothing. Math doesn't need the universe.

And quit watching that thing. The music is depressing.

The nature of the mind is intrinsically void? Bullshit. It's CHEMISTRY. There is no spiritual. It is all math, energy, and matter and the interactions thereof. There is only one purpose for the existence of life that we can really know of. Continued existence, mainly via reproduction. Learning how it all works is inherently interesting to intelligent minds. Fixating on what you can't do is a waste of time. Do what you can, learn what you can and make it interesting. That way you won't have time to waste on worrying about shit you can't control.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 09, 2011
When I was in high school I remember watching a comedy that had an ending I found severely depressing, mainly because I and the movie had rather different ideas of what constitutes dying and to me the lead character died. I was depressed for three days and I knew it was stupid to be depressed because a screenwriter was an idiot. I figured I would get over it and went and did other things. Not fixating on being down was important. It was just chemistry and I am not about to let a chemical pathway defect define who I am.

Too bad I didn't pull that off with my study habits. They sucked.

Ethelred
Pete1983
not rated yet Sep 11, 2011
Hey Ethelred, a lot to cover in your posts there. First off, books!

"Stone" - as much as it's a anti-hero kind of book, it's also terribly interesting from an advanced nano-tech perspective. Essentially the book takes place in a world where we have nano-bots in our bodies that are so good that death is essentially gone, and it's full post scarcity so everyone lives like a "superhuman millionaire" (I stole that term from the speculist, great radio show on blogtalkradio btw).

Other novels - Stross and Banks are simply brilliant. Not sure I've ever read anything bad by either of them. Simply love their work, and the Culture novels by banks are fantastic.

On "nothing" - I appreciate your distrust of anything with the label "spirituality" attached to it. In fact I approach things in the same way. The idea of crystals having "power" particularly frustrates me. However I would define what Watts talks about to be more within the realm of philosophy than spirituality.>>>
Pete1983
not rated yet Sep 11, 2011
Yet the terminology that Watts uses can often be of a somewhat "spiritual" nature, yet he does not mean them in that way. He talks in paradoxes quite regularly, as he expresses that language is very limiting when discussing these sorts of concepts. In fact I imagine he would completely agree with you (to a point) when you stated "It is all math, energy, and matter and the interactions thereof". However as much as we can state that the above is true from a logical perspective, it's difficult to comprehend on a human level. For example Feynman stated "It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." So as much as we can play with the equations, that doesn't necessarily mean we "understand" it. Or to take a sci-fi term, we don't necessarily "grok" it.

For me, as well as seemingly quite a number of physicists (I can give examples btw), the philosophy of Watts provides a methodology for attempting to "grok" reality, but please believe when I say it is entirely secular.
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 12, 2011
Other novels - Stross and Banks are simply brilliant.
Charlie's website. I don't post there very often. Tend to get to the discussions late and usually there are people that understand them much better than I.

http://www.accelerando.org/

Never tried to find out if Banks has a site.

Watts talks about to be more within the realm of philosophy than spirituality
Yes. There used to be a radio station that played Watts recordings in Southern California so I have heard quite a few of them. It was a long a time ago though.

language is very limiting when discussing these sorts of concepts.
It can be limiting in many discussions. Especially since Buddhism was originally in Hindi or a related language.

"It is all math, energy, and matter and the interactions thereof".
I don't know if even I fully agree with it. I suspect that it is true.

it's difficult to comprehend on a human level.
Yes. Math is hard. Especially for me.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 12, 2011
For example Feynman stated "It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
I agree but I suspect the real reason might be that QM is an emergent property of something deeper.

The problem with Buddhism (and I don't know enough about it to be sure on this) is the same as for Western Philosophy prior to the time of Copernicus and even later for those that never got into Natural Philosophy which is where science started. Philosophy suffered from Aristotle and the idea that thinking about things was enough. Even Leibniz thought that way.

Ideas have to be tested.

If the idea or the theory does not fit the evidence then it is wrong.

Most of the time.

Quark theory did NOT fit the evidence available at the time it was originally developed. Turned out the theory was better than the evidence that time around.

http://www.ted.co...ics.html

At 1:25 in the video he talks about that.

Ethelred
Pete1983
not rated yet Sep 12, 2011
I love that video. I watched it for the first time after reading a book on QM written by George Gamow which was incredible (the graphs in the book were hand drawn!). Within the book he made references to Murray, and from that I discovered the video. Shortly after this Murray died, and I couldn't help crying over the loss of such a remarkable individual when I watched the video again the day he died.

Anyway, on the larger note of Buddhism, I wouldn't say that I personally subscribe to Buddhism, as there are simply so many connotations that are carried along with that. Also there are a huge amount of Buddhists out there who believe in a lot of superstitious elements, and of course we want to steer clear of those.

However there are certain concepts within Buddhism that I find incredibly useful in trying to understand the world. The statement "thou art that", was a huge revelation for me as it is so simple to fall into the trap of seperateness. Perspective seems to help.
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 13, 2011
The reports of my death has been an exaggeration - Mark Twain

Shortly after this Murray died
When was this? Yesterday or something? He not only looked pretty good in that 2007 video EVERYTHING I see right now shows him as alive.

http://wiki.answe...Mann_die

http://tuvalu.san...age.html]http://tuvalu.san...age.html[/url]

http://tuvalu.san...age.html]http://tuvalu.san...age.html[/url]

Ethelred
Pete1983
not rated yet Sep 13, 2011
The reports of my death has been an exaggeration - Mark Twain

Shortly after this Murray died
When was this? Yesterday or something? He not only looked pretty good in that 2007 video EVERYTHING I see right now shows him as alive.

http://wiki.answe...Mann_die]http://tuvalu.san...age.html[/url]

Ethelred


Hey! Sorry, Murray is still going, but at the time a false report had stated he was dead, and I actually forgot that it WAS a false report!

Damn internet/twitter...