Runaway Global Warming

[Quantum Quack]

That is because they are taking too much water from the source that is refilling the reservoir. Solution - take less.

I never made that claim. That is a strawman, an argument you invented because you thought it would be easier to argue.

Yep - and we have plenty of those same "look how low the reservoir" stories are here, too.

The situation in Sao Paulo is that an unprecedented drought has been in place for approximately 9 months.
There is no sign of that drought breaking.
There is no reason to expect that the drought is limited to 12 months or even 18 months. There is no way to predict the long term out look.
Why?
Because it is unprecedented!
There are no models to rely upon. Just faith and hope.
There is also ongoing long running political leadership and fidelity issues.

If we presume that the drought extends into 12 months and beyond, Sao Paulo as a major city is finished unless major and expensive infrastructure allows water to be channeled from long distances.
Billy T has referred to a personal reserve of about 90 litres which at a stretch for two people is about 40 days if you are lucky. [drinking only]
It is currently late October, total city reserves are at 3.5%, summer is on it's way.
Sao Paulo is a warm city, it' summers are normally quite hot [regardless of global warming], with a similar climate to Brisbane QLD Australia, or Zimbabwe, Africa.
Trucking in water is only a short term emergency provisioning. It is very expensive.

Here, in Australia we have a few small mining towns* that rely exclusively on imported water via tanker and the significant increased cost of living associated per capita are available if research is warranted.
Melbourne where I live went through similar but on a smaller scale, population only 2 million or so. We were lucky ! The drought broke when it did. Major infrastructure is still needed to further protect against further drought in the future or it too will eventually have to be abandoned.

Being in a major city with out water are no better than standing in a desert waiting for an aid drop.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The top paragraph is .....

Your point?

The points are that

1. The predicted temperature rise for 2040 was already present and exceeded in the early 1980's [a temperature spike if you like]
2. The Arctic Perma Frost already had demonstrated significant thawing and release of CH4 well before climate change models even existed to the extent they do today. In fact may have been the main lead to the world becoming seriously concerned about Climate change.
   
3. The sudden thawing of the Artic Perma frost in the early 80's further supports the hypothesis that a major shift in "universal" structure (an anomaly) impacted locally during the the same time period causing a sudden upward shift in planetary internal temperatures.
   
4. This "event" then in turn due to the significant release of CH4 from thawed Perma frost (of the 80's) precipitated and primarily caused the global warming and climate change that we have experienced since. Human CO2 outputs and environmental degradation only exasperating an already serious situation. (hence global confusion on the causation reality of climate change and global warming)

Basically the contention is that the "horse had bolted" in the 80's and we have been playing "pin the tail on the donkey" ever since.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not toxic in itself. Nevertheless, the higher the CO2 level, the more the human breathing and brain functioning are affected. Persons with respiratory problems like asthma may be affected at a low level like 1000 ppm where other people will not feel any discomfort. But for the hazardous high levels in excess of 6 000 ppm, the CO2 caused discomforts are totally reversible. The affected person just has to go breathe in a lower CO2level place like outside until the discomfort disappears as the CO2 level in blood lowers.

The following table shows CO2 levels associated with various experienced discomforts.


ConcentrationSituationSymptoms and feelings
600 - 800 ppmOffice or well vented dwellingNone
1000 ppmAcceptable level for closed roomPossible symptoms for asthmatics and beginning of « intellectual fatigue » for sensitive persons
1200 - 2000 ppm

• Many people in a poorly vented meeting room
• Unvented bedroom occupied for 4-8 hours
• Indoor garden enriched in CO2
• Poorly vented or airtight house (air exchanger recommended)
• Poorly vented office, factory, school room (more ventilation air exchanger recommended)

Yawning and drowsiness or dizziness
Asthma and previous symptoms increasing
5000 ppmHigh limit for a continuous exposure during 8 hoursOnly for tolerant persons
Previous symptons reinforced
6000 - 30 000 ppmShort exposure onlyFainting possible prior to death*
3000 - 8000Out of control indoor garden CO2enrichmentBreathing and cardiac rythms increase





When and how much CO2 ?
Generally, enriching the garden's air to raise the level between 1,000 and 1,500 ppm is recommended. There is apparently no benefit to augment the concentration higher than 1,500 ppm.

http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm

facinating!
Hypothetically would you conclude that IF a person or population was suffering low levels of hyper thermia (as I have proposed in an earlier post), generally undetectable, that that person or population would be more sensitive to higher CO2 ratios?
That that populations sensitivity may manifest in increased respiratory issues such as Asthma and other compulsive bronchial problems etc? ie. what was tolerable before becoming not so tolerable?
Note : Western world hyper sensitivity to cigarette smoke (passive & non-passive) may have precipitated quit campaign from mid 80's

 

[Billy T]

... Yep - and we have plenty of those same "look how low the reservoir" stories are here, too.

Yes Here are a few you might want to consider:

California’s drought has reached epic proportions. Nearly 60 percent of the state is in exceptional drought—the most severe category—and farmers are depleting groundwater reserves at record rates as wildfires break out north and south. ... As much as 20 cubic kilometers of Central Valley groundwater may have been pumped out in just the last three years, according to one estimate. That’s about 12 percent of the last 150 years’ total depletion.

With less water in the aquifer beneath it to hold it up, the soil throughout the Central Valley is sinking. In some places, the land is dropping as much as a foot a year, damaging roads and other infrastructure and exposing communities to increased flood risk.

But the missing water wasn’t just holding up the soil; it may have been holding the earth down as well. A study published earlier this year in the journal Nature suggested that the more water gets pumped out of the ground in the Central Valley, the greater the chance of earthquakes on the nearby San Andreas Fault.

Although this shift of earth's center of gravity is small compared to made by snow an ice's seasonal mass shift, it has made noticeable change in satellite orbits.
It really is just a local "bump" probably not as large as decades of removal of iron ore by Brazil's Vale has made.

The global water crisis will be the central issue facing our world this century. "Last Call at the Oasis" is a powerful new documentary that shatters myths behind our most precious resource. This film exposes defects in the current system, shows communities already struggling with its ill-effects and highlights individuals championing revolutionary solutions

and this 3+ minute video (how CA may be out of water in two years) the first of four at:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/08/04/why-california-could-run-out-of-water-in-two-years
where photo below comes from (so I assume it is of a CA reservoir.)

Food prices are increasing faster than inflation, but that factor of 3 to 5, depending on the food item, can soon double if the central valley drought continues:

{the central valley of CA} agricultural productivity relies on irrigation from both surface water diversions and groundwater pumping from wells. About one-sixth of the irrigated land in the U.S. is in the Central Valley.[26]

Virtually all non-tropical crops are grown in the Central Valley, which is the primary source for a number of food products throughout the United States, including tomatoes, almonds, grapes, cotton, apricots, and asparagus. {& 85% of all carrots eaten in the US}

 

[Billy T]

...The sudden thawing of the Artic Perma frost in the early 80's further supports the hypothesis that a major shift in "universal" structure (an anomaly) impacted locally during the same time period causing a sudden upward shift in planetary internal temperatures. .

Normally presenters of a novel hypothesis have either some supporting evidence or theory to support it. You have none, and your claim conflicts with accepted evidence and theory. I assume your claim still relates to your "Shift of Earth's CoG" or your "gradational instability" which you still refuse to answer the questions I have twice asked you to.

Thus you need "extraordinary evidence" for your "extraordinary claim," but seem to have none!

 

[sculptor]

facinating!
Hypothetically would you conclude that IF a person or population was suffering low levels of hyper thermia (as I have proposed in an earlier post), generally undetectable, that that person or population would be more sensitive to higher CO2 ratios?
That that populations sensitivity may manifest in increased respiratory issues such as Asthma and other compulsive bronchial problems etc? ie. what was tolerable before becoming not so tolerable?
Note : Western world hyper sensitivity to cigarette smoke (passive & non-passive) may have precipitated quit campaign from mid 80's

I don't know.
But, I could guess.
There should not be a significant reaction below 1000ppm CO2.
People with hyperthermia and hypothermia both seem to have respiratory problems, and may notice discomfort at slightly lower concentrations. I suspect that it is the ratios of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, water vapor, CO2, etc... that is more important.

Here's an old chart designed for greenhouse gardening.

It seems, that for most plants the benefits of enriched CO2 pretty much top out at 1,000 ppm.
The Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) studies pretty much topped out at 600 ppm for plants who do not fix nitrogen.
Below about 200ppm, plants suffer and die from starvation. "Pre-industrial" CO2 atmospheric content estimates would be close to the minimum needed for a healthy biom. The primary producers seem to be thriving and increasing productivity far faster than our meager inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere. If, at 400ppm, the plants, phytoplankton included, are producing at 50% more than they were at 300ppm, then they are consuming 50% more CO2 and releasing 50% more O.
To my mind, this is an excellent symbiotic relationship in the making.

Concerning our shared coevolutionary biom: Both ethically and morally, I think that we are fulfilling our symbiotic responsibilities quite by accident. As long as we claim to be the intelligent species on this planet, then we add the responsibility of awareness. And, viewing the entire interplays within and of the biom with the purpose of optimizing that biom becomes our next great challenge.

More later:
sun is shining, roof is drying, and calls me forth.

 

[billvon]

Food prices are increasing faster than inflation, but that factor of 3 to 5, depending on the food item, can soon double if the central valley drought continues.

Definitely. Farmers will be the hardest-hit by a water shortage. California's been struggling with this for thirty years now, but their land-use policies are still nuts (catfish farms in El Centro, almond trees in Bakersfield.) In a way I am glad we've had the problems here for as long as we have; it means that the solutions we discover will be available for places without as many resources.

 

[Billy T]

...

It seems, that for most plants the benefits of enriched CO2 pretty much top out at 1,000 ppm ...

Chart assumes that CO2 is the growth liming factor, but that is rarely if ever true. Worse, however, it neglects important side effects of more CO2 (in air outside of a green house). One of the most significant of 1000ppm* would be destruction (via ocean acidification) of the food supply for millions who depend on marine life.

... humanity does not value the oceans, treating the planet’s life support system as a source of free food and, alternatively, a garbage dump for carbon dioxide, plastic, and other pollution.

Well, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity has just put a price tag on our neglect: $1 trillion a year. That’s how much the acidification of the ocean from greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cost the global economy annually by 2100. The loss will come mainly from the death of coral reefs that support a variety of marine life as well as 400 million people.

* In addition to many other adverse GW effects, 1000ppm would bring that trillion dollar loss 2.5 times faster. (2100 - 2015)/2.5 = 34 years from now, not in 2100.

 

[Billy T]

Definitely. Farmers will be the hardest-hit by a water shortage....

Assuming the growing stresses in the San Andreas Fault caused subsiding land (up to a foot /year) and the rising deeper rocks, being "unloaded" by the lessening water mass above them do not trigger the long over due "California's Big One."

 

[Billy T]

The state's three-year drought comes into sharp focus in Tulare County, the dairy and citrus heart of the state’s vast agricultural belt, where more than 500 wells have dried up. In one of the towns hardest hit by California's drought, the only way some residents can get water to flush the toilet is to drive to the fire station, hand-pump water into barrels and take it back home.
Larger farms have spent up to $1 million to drill 2,000 feet into the Central Valley’s ancient aquifer, Lockman said. But individual residents, whose wells are not so deep, have a harder time of it as the water supply shrinks into the earth.

 

[iceaura]

1. The predicted temperature rise for 2040 was already present and exceeded in the early 1980's [a temperature spike if you like

1. Are you sure you are comparing the temperatures of the same things? The IPCC is predicting surface air temperatures.

   The sudden thawing of the Artic Perma frost in the early 80's further supports the hypothesis that a major shift in "universal" structure (an anomaly) impacted locally during the the same time period causing a sudden upward shift in planetary internal temperatures.

   The Arctic permafrost did not "suddenly thaw" in the 1980s. It's thawing now - just getting started. And it's thawing from the top down, not from underneath.

1. This "event" then in turn due to the significant release of CH4 from thawed Perma frost (of the 80's) precipitated and primarily caused the global warming and climate change that we have experienced since. Human CO2 outputs and environmental degradation only exasperating an already serious situation.

   Except that didn't happen - it's happening now, a problem for the near future.

If, at 400ppm, the plants, phytoplankton included,

Your greenhouse chart does not apply even to wild plants, and is completely uninformative for phytoplankton. The most obvious factor overlooked is the competition for water and space and nutrients and sunlight between different plants - plants that can use the extra CO2 to ration their stomatal opening and conserve water, say, may gain. Plants that will have to keep their stomata open anyway to cool off are just wasting the extra CO2 and may lose - they are oversupplied with CO2 already, and the extra heat hurts them.

One of the beneficiaries from CO2 in the wild seems to be, in preliminary studies, for example, poison ivy - an edge terrain broadleaved plant that loses too much water to compete with the grass it would like to invade, along sunny prairie and woodland openings. The extra CO2 allows it to keep its water losses down. With a little extra CO2, it doesn't need as much water to support woody vining and growth a bit farther into the drier northlands than before. But poison ivy's gain is some other plant's loss. And so it will be in every ecosystem - greenhouses are set up to avoid such competition, in the first place, and to supply whatever other else is needed in matching quantities, in the second.

 

[Quantum Quack]

1. Are you sure you are comparing the temperatures of the same things? The IPCC is predicting surface air temperatures. The Arctic permafrost did not "suddenly thaw" in the 1980s. It's thawing now - just getting started. And it's thawing from the top down, not from underneath.

the wiki quote again:

"According to IPCC Fifth Assessment Report there is high confidence that permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s. Observed warming was up to 3°C in parts of Northern Alaska (early 1980s to mid-2000s) and up to 2°C in parts of the Russian European North (1971–2010)."

clearly states that warming of the permafrost has increased in most regions since the 1980's Observered warming was up to 3 degrees C in parts of Northern Alaska 1980's -2000

Place the above in context of later predictions and I see an incongruity in observation and prediction
Besides which I recall news reports years ago that significant areas of the permafrost had thawed in many places. An early 90's documentary to support the notion of global warming.
It had thawed, not that it was about to thaw and this is a very important distinction. We have learned a hell of lot more about GW and CC since that documentary years ago.
But the fact was the documentary indicated that the perma frost had thawed in many critical areas.
From what I understand Perma frost is not just 0 deg c it has to be a lot colder to be considered as perma frost, so evidence of any thaw is significant.

Perma Frost thaw ponds Canada Hudson Bay 2008. Actual thaw date ???

 

[sculptor]

Chart assumes that CO2 is the growth liming factor, but that is rarely if ever true. Worse, however, it neglects important side effects of more CO2 (in air outside of a green house). One of the most significant of 1000ppm* would be destruction (via ocean acidification) of the food supply for millions who depend on marine life.* In addition to many other adverse GW effects, 1000ppm would bring that trillion dollar loss 2.5 times faster. (2100 - 2015)/2.5 = 34 years from now, not in 2100.

...Limiting factor" ---kinda why I mentioned the face studies.
What do you think is the likelihood that sapiens sapiens could ever achieve 1000 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 concentration?
I'd guess that the best that we could do would be about 600ppm.
Currently, only about 46% of the CO2 we produce remains in the atmosphere. If we do not cool in the next few years and keep a longer growing season, then the Primary producers will continue to flourish and continue consuming more and more CO2. If, however, we are indeed heading into a grand solar minimum, and that means colder temperatures and a shorter growing season then the primary producers will fall behind as colder temps mean a longer heating season and increased CO2 emissions .

As/re the Ocean ecosystem: I had previously mentioned reef the studies along the line islands wherein, the entire ecosystem wherein, they report that the reefs are healthy and attribute the cause to top predators.
To quote:

That abundance of predators could easily be lost. Sala reckons it would take just a few months for a large vessel to strip the reefs of sharks, which are hunted for their fins. The health of the ecosystem could then quickly plummet. Without top predators, midrange predators would likely proliferate, herbivore numbers tumble, and algae overtake the coral.

and:

The scientists were similarly surprised by the health of the crowded coral communities. Across the Pacific, water-temperature spikes caused by El Niño weather events have killed off massive amounts of coral. But the reefs of the southern Line Islands seem to be unaffected by bleaching or disease. “We know this region was hit hard by ocean warming, and we expected to see coral death, but the reefs were untouched—perfect,” says Sala.

Corals tend to be resilient in places where other elements of the marine ecosystem are flourishing too. In parts of the lagoon at Millennium, densities of giant clams reach up to four per square foot—an almost unheard-of abundance for creatures highly sought for their meat and shells. “Giant clams have been decimated in most atoll lagoons,” says Sala. “In Millennium lagoon the reefs are paved with clams.”

The most common species, Tridacna maxima, is better known by a name that seems to contradict itself: the “small giant clam.” These mollusks are a little longer than an American football, but they are dwarfed by individuals from the largest clam species, Tridacna gigas, which can exceed four feet in length. At first glance the small giants look like they’re wearing blue, indigo, green, or another shade of lipstick. In fact the color comes from pigment cells inside their fleshy mantles, which protrude like wavy lips when the shells are open.

The giant filter-feeders act as water purifiers. Microbiologists on the expedition measured bacterial concentrations at every atoll they visited and found Millennium’s clam-filled lagoon to have the lowest count. Bacteria can cause diseases in coral, fish, shellfish, and crustaceans such as crabs. Low concentrations in seawater are an indication of a healthy marine ecosystem.

more at "acidification":
You might consider:

When CO2 from the atmosphere reacts with seawater, it immediately forms carbonic acid
(H2CO3), which in itself is unstable. This further dissociates to form bicarbonate and
carbonate ions. The bicarbonate and carbonate ions are responsible for the buffering capacity
of seawater, i.e. seawater can resist drastic pH changes even after the addition of weak bases
and acids. The carbonate ion can react with calcium ions (Ca), which are in excess in
seawater, to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3), the material out of which the shells of mussels,
the skeleton of corals and the exoskeleton of some microalgae is made of.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In researching Hyperthermia there is reference to what is referred to as our bodies temperature set point.
Generally from what I can gather the distinction that allows the term hyperthermia to be relevant is that the bodies temp set point remains unchanged [no fever] yet over heating exists.
I am getting the sneeky impression that CO2 production, as part of a natural balancing act, is critical in maintaining that set point.
Hypothesis:
In a self justifying system that is enduring hyperthermatic conditions production of CO2 is essential in maintaining the systems set point.
CO2 is not the enemy we think it is...
hmmmm....
which then supports the notion that the planet is in the process of adapting and restoring balance to a self justifying system that was rudely disrupted in the early 80's

 

[Quantum Quack]

Normally presenters of a novel hypothesis have either some supporting evidence or theory to support it. You have none, and your claim conflicts with accepted evidence and theory. I assume your claim still relates to your "Shift of Earth's CoG" or your "gradational instability" which you still refuse to answer the questions I have twice asked you to.

Thus you need "extraordinary evidence" for your "extraordinary claim," but seem to have none!

uhm are phenomena such as Dark flow, CBR cold spot (Eridanas Void) extraordinary enough for you?
To me Dark Flow indicates a "secondary and anomalous COG is evident. The flowing of thousands of galaxies to an invisible attraction out there not far from the Great attractor is quite dramatic support for my hypothesis when you think about it. It also says volumes about the associated physics we believe to be valid. [like GR for example]
The existence of currently held physics defying CBR cold spot is also as a symptom of what happens when a universe develops at least two COG's
The correlation from the macro to the micro is demonstrated by seeing the associations between:

• Dark Flow <=> Multiple COG leading to increased Fusion reaction with in all masses <=> planetary eco system over heating [ hyper thermia. ] <=> massive essentially inexplicable oceanic marine animal die off, respiratory issues etc
  
• CBR Cold spot <=> oceanic dead spots <=> no life, no living energy, hypoxia

reminds me of "When God catches a cold the universe sneezes"

 

[sculptor]

Are we being pulled toward the great attractor?
If so, then do planets leading the sun have extended orbits(conflicting gravitational forces) at that point of leading?

Are we just passengers in/on a cosmic river flowing toward the great attractor?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Are we being pulled toward the great attractor?
If so, then do planets leading the sun have extended orbits(conflicting gravitational forces) at that point of leading?

Are we just passengers in/on a cosmic river flowing toward the great attractor?

I'll attempt to be as candid as I can and see what happens:

In my understanding, and remember my understanding is in direct conflict in many ways with conventional understanding, the Great Attractor is a "culminate" Center of Gravity for the observable universe. In other words it exist as a result of the culmination of all gravitational attractions universally. (the sum of all reflected)

Theoretically there should only be one universal Culminate COG, a significant zero point, that provides the fundamental order this universe displays. [macro scale]
We are falling as a galaxy towards it no more than a moon does towards a planet. Given the huge scale of things, it would only be able to be evidenced by using macro scales and not micro scales such as our immediate solar systems behavior. [being more impacted by our own galactic COG than that of the universal COG]

To discover the Dark Flow phenomena provides a in-congruency in what would intuitively be expected and to me at least indicates further evidence of an anomaly I am aware of for other reasons.
In fact being aware of that undisclosed anomaly causation would lead me to predict the existence of Dark flow and CBR cold spots. It was this knowledge [ experience ] that forced me to seek out an understanding years ago and generated the Zero Point Theory I have been referring to in the past. That theory would predict only the Great attractor and not the Dark flow pheno on the presumption of a "healthy " universe. Yet Dark Flow exists, defying both conventional science and my own less conventional science. As does accel. cosmic metric expansion.
My theorising allows for an understanding of Dark flow where as conventional understanding doesn't. Especially in light of what I have been experiencing for nearly 30 years now and still do on a daily basis.

To address Billy T's questions about the anomaly:

I can not disclose the actual anomaly causation and other detail because the truth of it is just way too distressing for most humans to endure or accept The effects being greatly amplified by intense fear and paranoia. A hint though can be found if one knew the truth behind the tragic SIDS [Sudden infant death syndrome]

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) also known as cot death or crib death is the sudden death of an infant that is not predicted by medical history and remains unexplained after a thorough forensic autopsy and detailed death scene investigation.[1] Infants are at the highest risk for SIDS during sleep. Typically the infant is found dead after having been put to bed, and exhibits no signs of having struggled.

I might add in an ironic optimistic note that the advent of increased Childhood asthma cases IMO is a result in the reduction of SID incidences since 1988. The problem of SIDS appears to have been "naturally" addressed by children developing asthma instead [ as the universal situation improves ]. If you relate both graphs you can see a co-relationship between declining SIDS and increases in Childhood asthma cases. The two childhood issues are directly related IMO. ( as are other chronic problems such as ADHD etc...)

"lucky to be alive at all" comes to mind...

Suffice to say we humans are more "universal" in our physical, emotional and intellectual make up than most would seriously consider and experience in a cognizant fashion. [ most of such is deep subconscious experience and not supposed to be cognizant in or to the untrained and inexperienced conscious world.

I am currently searching and researching for other signs for hyperthermia astronomically and what signs would be needed to be seen in extraterrestrial forms. Other planets should show signs of hyperthermia with the pivotal date being Earth 1985/86. The CBR should show signs of temp gain as well [Global warming should read Universal warming]

 

[iceaura]

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report there is high confidence that permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s. Observed warming was up to 3°C in parts of Northern Alaska (early 1980s to mid-2000s) and up to 2°C in parts of the Russian European North (1971–2010)."

clearly states that warming of the permafrost has increased in most regions since the 1980's Observered warming was up to 3 degrees C in parts of Northern Alaska 1980's -2000

But you seem to think that contradicts the standard IPCC prognostications for atmosphere temps, and is new information different from what the regular view is. Why?

 

[Quantum Quack]

But you seem to think that contradicts the standard IPCC prognostications for atmosphere temps, and is new information different from what the regular view is. Why?

You only need to ask the following:
What are the predicted temperatures for 2040?
What were the temperatures 1980-2000?
I think you will find that the actual thawing long term temps recorded prior t0 2000 were higher than those predicted for 2040
Either way the sheer fact that there has been a significant permafrost thawing recorded from 1980's with out global warming history prior to it thawing in it self says something IMO.
Suddenly the thaw has occurred with temp of 3 deg c. History of prior warming is not mentioned.
Perhaps you are not considering the fact we are discussing the thawing of ground that is typically holding a temperature considerably less than 0 deg c. recorded as doing so with a air surface temp of 3 deg c from as early as the 1980's.
The permafrost is not thawed that easily I would think.

 

[iceaura]

You only need to ask the following:
What are the predicted temperatures for 2040?
What were the temperatures 1980-2000?
I think you will find that the actual thawing long term temps recorded prior t0 2000 were higher than those predicted for 2040

Temperatures of what? You seem to be confusing the air with the ground, here.