Woolly Mammoths would prevent the permafrost from melting and help save the planet

The goal of woolly mammoth project is to solve the permafrost climate issue.

The top area of the world is covered in permafrost. The Siberian and Canadian tundra is this mass of permafrost and that permafrost is a ticking time bomb it contains within it more carbon, carbon dioxide and methane than if we burned all the forests on earth three times. The ice is slowly melting and when it reaches a certain point and it lets all this out it’s gonna be really really bad for everyone.

Russian scientists have been running experiments since the 1980s where they roped off a section of the permafrost and they repopulated it with bison, reindeer elk and hairy horses. They actually got a World War 2 era tank which they drive up and down the tundra to to make it seem like a mammoth was there and they’ve managed to lower the temperature of the ice by as much as 15 to 20 degrees Celsius.

If you could bring back the woolly mammoth and put it back where it belonged then they would actually lower the temperature of the permafrost and delay any melting for another century or more.

We could bring back a species that actually makes the environment better.

There was a time when there were only a few hundred bison and we brought them back to half a million.

A point made a book by these Russian scientists is it wasn’t that the environment changed and thus the mammoth died. It was the mammoth died and thus the environment changed which is a really cool way to look at it.

125 thoughts on “Woolly Mammoths would prevent the permafrost from melting and help save the planet”

  1. Okay… if I’m reading this correctly, they are saying that the animals would provide shade that in turn would prevent the melting? Over tens of thousands of square miles?? Oh boy… Alternative: Essay by Eric Worrall A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures. The abstract from the paper; Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change, but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics. Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html Unfortunately the main paper is paywalled, but I think we get the general idea. And unless the climate starts to warm again, we won’t even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper. For the last few years, alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare, with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes, but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the “permafrost bomb” will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.

    Reply
  2. Okay… if I’m reading this correctly they are saying that the animals would provide shade that in turn would prevent the melting? Over tens of thousands of square miles?? Oh boy… Alternative:Essay by Eric WorrallA new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures.The abstract from the paper;Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.htmlUnfortunately the main paper is paywalled but I think we get the general idea. And unless the climate starts to warm again we won’t even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper.For the last few years alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the “permafrost bomb” will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.”

    Reply
  3. No, it isn’t shade. It’s about disrupting the snow cover. During winter, the ground is covered in snow (in these permafrost areas). BUT snow is actually a pretty good insulator. So you’ve got freezing arctic winter air above the snow that is 20 degrees colder (proper degrees or Fahrenheit I don’t know) that should be cooling the ground down but isn’t because it’s protected by the snow. Don’t get it wrong, the ground is still frozen, but without the snow it would be 20 degrees colder still. Then, during the summer, the ground starts to thaw. The permafrost isn’t so perma any more. But if the ground was starting the spring 20 degrees colder (because it was superchilled during winter, because no snow) then it would take months longer to warm up to the point of thawing, so the permafrost would stay frozen all summer until winter started again. So having mammoths (and presumably mastodon, furry rhino, Andrewsarchus, other ancient beasts) will chew up the snow cover and pack it down, resulting in less insulation and more freezing of the permafrost.

    Reply
  4. Actually, this is one of the closer to success “de-extinction” projects, thanks to effectively flash frozen mammoths being found in ice, and their close genetic relationship to modern elephants.

    Reply
  5. The Idea is that the Mammoths smash the snow therefore compressing the snow and ice and cooling the ground. They also break tree’s constantly meaning more grassland and permafrost.

    Reply
  6. I remember reading about this once before. I think the idea is that grasslands reflect a lot more light than trees, and therefore lower the temperature considerably.

    Reply
  7. No it isn’t shade.It’s about disrupting the snow cover. During winter the ground is covered in snow (in these permafrost areas). BUT snow is actually a pretty good insulator.So you’ve got freezing arctic winter air above the snow that is 20 degrees colder (proper degrees or Fahrenheit I don’t know) that should be cooling the ground down but isn’t because it’s protected by the snow. Don’t get it wrong the ground is still frozen but without the snow it would be 20 degrees colder still.Then during the summer the ground starts to thaw. The permafrost isn’t so perma any more.But if the ground was starting the spring 20 degrees colder (because it was superchilled during winter because no snow) then it would take months longer to warm up to the point of thawing so the permafrost would stay frozen all summer until winter started again.So having mammoths (and presumably mastodon furry rhino Andrewsarchus other ancient beasts) will chew up the snow cover and pack it down resulting in less insulation and more freezing of the permafrost.

    Reply
  8. Actually this is one of the closer to success de-extinction”” projects”” thanks to effectively flash frozen mammoths being found in ice”” and their close genetic relationship to modern elephants.”””

    Reply
  9. The Idea is that the Mammoths smash the snow therefore compressing the snow and ice and cooling the ground. They also break tree’s constantly meaning more grassland and permafrost.

    Reply
  10. I remember reading about this once before. I think the idea is that grasslands reflect a lot more light than trees and therefore lower the temperature considerably.

    Reply
  11. Huh? You are suddenly believing published science now? I thought climate scientists were in a global conspiracy to fool the public into creating a socialist world government?? “unless the climate starts to warm again’ Well I guess if you are taking science seriously now, then you should consider just as seriously all the papers now showing that there was no hiatus. Wiki sums it up and provides the refs. ‘The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed “hiatus” since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend,[24] and 2016 was even slightly warmer. In January 2017, a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause, with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26] An April 2017 study found the data consistent with a steady warming trend globally since the 1970s, with fluctuations within the expected range of short term variability.[27] A November 2017 joint study by scientists at the University of Fairbanks and Beijing University found that when missing data from the rapidly warming Arctic were interpolated and included in global temperature averages, the so-called hiatus disappeared entirely.[28]” Finally, the paper you cite is from back in 2015. More recent papers indicate that loss of permafrost has a higher sensitivity to temperature than previous estimates. e.g. An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming S. E. Chadburn, E. J. Burke, P. M. Cox, P. Friedlingstein, G. Hugelius & S. Westermann Nature Climate Change volume 7, pages 340–344 (2017)

    Reply
  12. I think that the herbivores eat the plants that melt the permafrost when growing. probably bringing more in reindeer or other similar herbivors can do the job, No need to wait till we bring back to life the mamoth with ton of genetic disease for that.

    Reply
  13. Huh?You are suddenly believing published science now? I thought climate scientists were in a global conspiracy to fool the public into creating a socialist world government??unless the climate starts to warm again’Well I guess if you are taking science seriously now” then you should consider just as seriously all the papers now showing that there was no hiatus. Wiki sums it up and provides the refs.’The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed “”hiatus”””” since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend””[24] and 2016 was even slightly warmer. In January 2017 a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26] An April 2017 study found the data consistent with a steady warming trend globally since the 1970s with fluctuations within the expected range of short term variability.[27] A November 2017 joint study by scientists at the University of Fairbanks and Beijing University found that when missing data from the rapidly warming Arctic were interpolated and included in global temperature averages”” the so-called hiatus disappeared entirely.[28]””””Finally”” the paper you cite is from back in 2015. More recent papers indicate that loss of permafrost has a higher sensitivity to temperature than previous estimates.e.g. An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warmingS. E. Chadburn E. J. Burke P. M. Cox P. Friedlingstein G. Hugelius & S. WestermannNature Climate Change volume 7″” pages 340–344 (2017)”””””””

    Reply
  14. I think that the herbivores eat the plants that melt the permafrost when growing. probably bringing more in reindeer or other similar herbivors can do the job No need to wait till we bring back to life the mamoth with ton of genetic disease for that.

    Reply
  15. So all we need is, what, 10000 or so mammoth? But how long would it take to breed a genetically diverse population that size? Even if the population could double every 20 years, I think we’re looking at around 260 years… I guess you could create 10000 genetically altered elephant embryos and implant them in 10000 elephants?

    Reply
  16. This guy has studied modern elephant DNA and that from recently extinct woolly mammoths, mastodons and straight-tusked elephants. He says the different species have mixed and mingled at different times down the ages, but concludes – ‘ What would you say to those of us who are very eager to see a mammoth or mastodon cloned?’ ‘We now have genome sequences of about 70 or 80 percent of the mammoth genome. The parts that we couldn’t sequence are in parts of the genome that are too broken up and confused to be able to figure out where the sequences we’re obtaining map to. My personal feeling is that if we tried to create a cloned mammoth, it would really be very unfair to the poor individual, because they would certainly die of errors in the DNA sequence that were stuck into their genome.’ http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/02/27/elephant-dna-mammoth

    Reply
  17. So all we need is what 10000 or so mammoth? But how long would it take to breed a genetically diverse population that size? Even if the population could double every 20 years I think we’re looking at around 260 years… I guess you could create 10000 genetically altered elephant embryos and implant them in 10000 elephants?

    Reply
  18. This guy has studied modern elephant DNA and that from recently extinct woolly mammoths mastodons and straight-tusked elephants. He says the different species have mixed and mingled at different times down the ages but concludes -‘ What would you say to those of us who are very eager to see a mammoth or mastodon cloned?”We now have genome sequences of about 70 or 80 percent of the mammoth genome. The parts that we couldn’t sequence are in parts of the genome that are too broken up and confused to be able to figure out where the sequences we’re obtaining map to. My personal feeling is that if we tried to create a cloned mammoth it would really be very unfair to the poor individual because they would certainly die of errors in the DNA sequence that were stuck into their genome.’http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/02/27/elephant-dna-mammoth

    Reply
  19. Most projections are that dry areas will get drier, wet areas will get wetter, and when rain comes it will be all at once, resulting in flooding and erosion. This is not conducive to good farming production. Yes, Canada might benefit, but billions of people in Africa and Asia in particular will have a rough go of it. Australia will face more droughts. You might not care about coastal cities, but insurance companies and governments do. Inland communities will end up paying one way or another for flood control and relocation efforts.

    Reply
  20. Oneill has it right. This is useful for study, but certainly is a long way from being implemented. And when they do try to create a mammoth (it probably will happen at some point), it will be a mammoth/elephant hybrid. Basically a hairy elephant that might be cold tolerant, but it’s not going to be a 100% faithful reproduction of the mammoth. There are other extinct species that are actually closer to being brought back, and those are ones that went extinct in the last couple hundred years. Bottom line, by the time this gets off the ground, they get a breeding population of mammoths, and they start increasing in number, whatever is going to happen to the Arctic will have already happened.

    Reply
  21. The ice is slowly melting and when it reaches a certain point and it lets all this out it’s gonna be really really bad for everyone.” Except for the tundras themselves which would be liberated from the ice and would flourish… The same for Antarctica, but it would take hundred or thousands of years to completely melt. And the Sahara, which would turn green because of the global increase in precipitation. And ultimately the whole planet would flourish because of the much increased rains. Only coastal cities would be screwed of which I don’t give the slightest crap about.

    Reply
  22. Most projections are that dry areas will get drier” wet areas will get wetter””I doubt it. In the last glacial period the sahara got drier and expanded massively. As it got warmer it shrunk. It makes sense that getting even warmer would continue this trend.”””

    Reply
  23. Most projections are that dry areas will get drier wet areas will get wetter and when rain comes it will be all at once resulting in flooding and erosion.This is not conducive to good farming production. Yes Canada might benefit but billions of people in Africa and Asia in particular will have a rough go of it. Australia will face more droughts.You might not care about coastal cities but insurance companies and governments do. Inland communities will end up paying one way or another for flood control and relocation efforts.

    Reply
  24. Oneill has it right. This is useful for study but certainly is a long way from being implemented. And when they do try to create a mammoth (it probably will happen at some point) it will be a mammoth/elephant hybrid. Basically a hairy elephant that might be cold tolerant but it’s not going to be a 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} faithful reproduction of the mammoth.There are other extinct species that are actually closer to being brought back and those are ones that went extinct in the last couple hundred years.Bottom line by the time this gets off the ground they get a breeding population of mammoths and they start increasing in number whatever is going to happen to the Arctic will have already happened.

    Reply
  25. The ice is slowly melting and when it reaches a certain point and it lets all this out it’s gonna be really really bad for everyone.””Except for the tundras themselves which would be liberated from the ice and would flourish…The same for Antarctica”” but it would take hundred or thousands of years to completely melt.And the Sahara”” which would turn green because of the global increase in precipitation.And ultimately the whole planet would flourish because of the much increased rains. Only coastal cities would be screwed of which I don’t give the slightest crap about.”””””””

    Reply
  26. Most projections are designed with inducing a degree of panic, so that people will agree to hand over power to the folks promising to avert catastrophe.

    Reply
  27. Oh, I agree, if the problem is real, this isn’t going to be implemented fast enough. Looking at their progress, they’re adding one gene complex at a time, testing out the effects in tissue culture. They might try a full embryo in a couple of years. At best bringing back the mammoth would be a long term project to restore the tundra, not a solution to an immediate problem. Like you throw a tarp over a hole in your roof before a storm, and rebuild the roof later.

    Reply
  28. Most projections are that dry areas will get drier, wet areas will get wetter” I doubt it. In the last glacial period the sahara got drier and expanded massively. As it got warmer it shrunk. It makes sense that getting even warmer would continue this trend.

    Reply
  29. Most projections are designed with inducing a degree of panic so that people will agree to hand over power to the folks promising to avert catastrophe.

    Reply
  30. Oh I agree if the problem is real this isn’t going to be implemented fast enough. Looking at their progress they’re adding one gene complex at a time testing out the effects in tissue culture. They might try a full embryo in a couple of years.At best bringing back the mammoth would be a long term project to restore the tundra not a solution to an immediate problem. Like you throw a tarp over a hole in your roof before a storm and rebuild the roof later.

    Reply
  31. ‘closer to success’….so is nuclear fusion, as we’ve been repeatedly told for decades now. ‘Close to success cloned Mammoths’ are a lot like pitching for mining He3 on the Moon. We don’t have He3 reactors, so why bother until we actually do? 🙂

    Reply
  32. ‘closer to success’….so is nuclear fusion as we’ve been repeatedly told for decades now.’Close to success cloned Mammoths’ are a lot like pitching for mining He3 on the Moon. We don’t have He3 reactors so why bother until we actually do?:)

    Reply
  33. You know what you get if defrost all the permafrost??? A really really big bog! I’m thinking that this isn’t going to be exactly prime real estate to put it mildly…

    Reply
  34. I wouldn’t bother for the advertised purpose, but, who knows, maybe they’re yummy. Not really serious about that, elephants are high enough the intelligence scale that I’d feel bad about eating them. They should concentrate on bringing back the passenger pigeon and dodo.

    Reply
  35. You know what you get if defrost all the permafrost??? A really really big bog! I’m thinking that this isn’t going to be exactly prime real estate to put it mildly…

    Reply
  36. I wouldn’t bother for the advertised purpose but who knows maybe they’re yummy.Not really serious about that elephants are high enough the intelligence scale that I’d feel bad about eating them. They should concentrate on bringing back the passenger pigeon and dodo.

    Reply
  37. During the last interglacial it was 8C warmer in Greenland for 6000 years, despite that ice just declined by 25%. Even then earth did not get out from this many million years long this ice age. Interglacical is a warmer period in an ice age, but not so warm that the global climate goes out of ice age. Global warming in an ice age is an anti-intellectual threat. See Niels Bohr Climate Institute if you don´t believe me.

    Reply
  38. During the last interglacial it was 8C warmer in Greenland for 6000 years despite that ice just declined by 25{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. Even then earth did not get out from this many million years long this ice age. Interglacical is a warmer period in an ice age but not so warm that the global climate goes out of ice age. Global warming in an ice age is an anti-intellectual threat. See Niels Bohr Climate Institute if you don´t believe me.”

    Reply
  39. If we could teach them to understand English or Russian and if we could learn their vocal meaning while they are infants, we could tell them where the best food sources are and so on. And use communication to prevent conflict, to prevent homicide and probicide, village trampling and so on.

    Reply
  40. If we could teach them to understand English or Russian and if we could learn their vocal meaning while they are infants we could tell them where the best food sources are and so on. And use communication to prevent conflict to prevent homicide and probicide village trampling and so on.

    Reply
  41. If we could teach them to understand English or Russian and if we could learn their vocal meaning while they are infants, we could tell them where the best food sources are and so on. And use communication to prevent conflict, to prevent homicide and probicide, village trampling and so on.

    Reply
  42. If we could teach them to understand English or Russian and if we could learn their vocal meaning while they are infants we could tell them where the best food sources are and so on. And use communication to prevent conflict to prevent homicide and probicide village trampling and so on.

    Reply
  43. If we could teach them to understand English or Russian and if we could learn their vocal meaning while they are infants, we could tell them where the best food sources are and so on. And use communication to prevent conflict, to prevent homicide and probicide, village trampling and so on.

    Reply
  44. During the last interglacial it was 8C warmer in Greenland for 6000 years, despite that ice just declined by 25%. Even then earth did not get out from this many million years long this ice age. Interglacical is a warmer period in an ice age, but not so warm that the global climate goes out of ice age. Global warming in an ice age is an anti-intellectual threat. See Niels Bohr Climate Institute if you don´t believe me.

    Reply
  45. During the last interglacial it was 8C warmer in Greenland for 6000 years despite that ice just declined by 25{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. Even then earth did not get out from this many million years long this ice age. Interglacical is a warmer period in an ice age but not so warm that the global climate goes out of ice age. Global warming in an ice age is an anti-intellectual threat. See Niels Bohr Climate Institute if you don´t believe me.”

    Reply
  46. During the last interglacial it was 8C warmer in Greenland for 6000 years, despite that ice just declined by 25%. Even then earth did not get out from this many million years long this ice age. Interglacical is a warmer period in an ice age, but not so warm that the global climate goes out of ice age. Global warming in an ice age is an anti-intellectual threat. See Niels Bohr Climate Institute if you don´t believe me.

    Reply
  47. You know what you get if defrost all the permafrost??? A really really big bog! I’m thinking that this isn’t going to be exactly prime real estate to put it mildly…

    Reply
  48. You know what you get if defrost all the permafrost??? A really really big bog! I’m thinking that this isn’t going to be exactly prime real estate to put it mildly…

    Reply
  49. I wouldn’t bother for the advertised purpose, but, who knows, maybe they’re yummy. Not really serious about that, elephants are high enough the intelligence scale that I’d feel bad about eating them. They should concentrate on bringing back the passenger pigeon and dodo.

    Reply
  50. I wouldn’t bother for the advertised purpose but who knows maybe they’re yummy.Not really serious about that elephants are high enough the intelligence scale that I’d feel bad about eating them. They should concentrate on bringing back the passenger pigeon and dodo.

    Reply
  51. ‘closer to success’….so is nuclear fusion, as we’ve been repeatedly told for decades now. ‘Close to success cloned Mammoths’ are a lot like pitching for mining He3 on the Moon. We don’t have He3 reactors, so why bother until we actually do? 🙂

    Reply
  52. ‘closer to success’….so is nuclear fusion as we’ve been repeatedly told for decades now.’Close to success cloned Mammoths’ are a lot like pitching for mining He3 on the Moon. We don’t have He3 reactors so why bother until we actually do?:)

    Reply
  53. Most projections are designed with inducing a degree of panic, so that people will agree to hand over power to the folks promising to avert catastrophe.

    Reply
  54. Most projections are designed with inducing a degree of panic so that people will agree to hand over power to the folks promising to avert catastrophe.

    Reply
  55. Oh, I agree, if the problem is real, this isn’t going to be implemented fast enough. Looking at their progress, they’re adding one gene complex at a time, testing out the effects in tissue culture. They might try a full embryo in a couple of years. At best bringing back the mammoth would be a long term project to restore the tundra, not a solution to an immediate problem. Like you throw a tarp over a hole in your roof before a storm, and rebuild the roof later.

    Reply
  56. Oh I agree if the problem is real this isn’t going to be implemented fast enough. Looking at their progress they’re adding one gene complex at a time testing out the effects in tissue culture. They might try a full embryo in a couple of years.At best bringing back the mammoth would be a long term project to restore the tundra not a solution to an immediate problem. Like you throw a tarp over a hole in your roof before a storm and rebuild the roof later.

    Reply
  57. Most projections are that dry areas will get drier, wet areas will get wetter” I doubt it. In the last glacial period the sahara got drier and expanded massively. As it got warmer it shrunk. It makes sense that getting even warmer would continue this trend.

    Reply
  58. Most projections are that dry areas will get drier” wet areas will get wetter””I doubt it. In the last glacial period the sahara got drier and expanded massively. As it got warmer it shrunk. It makes sense that getting even warmer would continue this trend.”””

    Reply
  59. Most projections are that dry areas will get drier, wet areas will get wetter, and when rain comes it will be all at once, resulting in flooding and erosion. This is not conducive to good farming production. Yes, Canada might benefit, but billions of people in Africa and Asia in particular will have a rough go of it. Australia will face more droughts. You might not care about coastal cities, but insurance companies and governments do. Inland communities will end up paying one way or another for flood control and relocation efforts.

    Reply
  60. Most projections are that dry areas will get drier wet areas will get wetter and when rain comes it will be all at once resulting in flooding and erosion.This is not conducive to good farming production. Yes Canada might benefit but billions of people in Africa and Asia in particular will have a rough go of it. Australia will face more droughts.You might not care about coastal cities but insurance companies and governments do. Inland communities will end up paying one way or another for flood control and relocation efforts.

    Reply
  61. Oneill has it right. This is useful for study, but certainly is a long way from being implemented. And when they do try to create a mammoth (it probably will happen at some point), it will be a mammoth/elephant hybrid. Basically a hairy elephant that might be cold tolerant, but it’s not going to be a 100% faithful reproduction of the mammoth. There are other extinct species that are actually closer to being brought back, and those are ones that went extinct in the last couple hundred years. Bottom line, by the time this gets off the ground, they get a breeding population of mammoths, and they start increasing in number, whatever is going to happen to the Arctic will have already happened.

    Reply
  62. Oneill has it right. This is useful for study but certainly is a long way from being implemented. And when they do try to create a mammoth (it probably will happen at some point) it will be a mammoth/elephant hybrid. Basically a hairy elephant that might be cold tolerant but it’s not going to be a 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} faithful reproduction of the mammoth.There are other extinct species that are actually closer to being brought back and those are ones that went extinct in the last couple hundred years.Bottom line by the time this gets off the ground they get a breeding population of mammoths and they start increasing in number whatever is going to happen to the Arctic will have already happened.

    Reply
  63. The ice is slowly melting and when it reaches a certain point and it lets all this out it’s gonna be really really bad for everyone.” Except for the tundras themselves which would be liberated from the ice and would flourish… The same for Antarctica, but it would take hundred or thousands of years to completely melt. And the Sahara, which would turn green because of the global increase in precipitation. And ultimately the whole planet would flourish because of the much increased rains. Only coastal cities would be screwed of which I don’t give the slightest crap about.

    Reply
  64. The ice is slowly melting and when it reaches a certain point and it lets all this out it’s gonna be really really bad for everyone.””Except for the tundras themselves which would be liberated from the ice and would flourish…The same for Antarctica”” but it would take hundred or thousands of years to completely melt.And the Sahara”” which would turn green because of the global increase in precipitation.And ultimately the whole planet would flourish because of the much increased rains. Only coastal cities would be screwed of which I don’t give the slightest crap about.”””””””

    Reply
  65. So all we need is, what, 10000 or so mammoth? But how long would it take to breed a genetically diverse population that size? Even if the population could double every 20 years, I think we’re looking at around 260 years… I guess you could create 10000 genetically altered elephant embryos and implant them in 10000 elephants?

    Reply
  66. So all we need is what 10000 or so mammoth? But how long would it take to breed a genetically diverse population that size? Even if the population could double every 20 years I think we’re looking at around 260 years… I guess you could create 10000 genetically altered elephant embryos and implant them in 10000 elephants?

    Reply
  67. This guy has studied modern elephant DNA and that from recently extinct woolly mammoths, mastodons and straight-tusked elephants. He says the different species have mixed and mingled at different times down the ages, but concludes – ‘ What would you say to those of us who are very eager to see a mammoth or mastodon cloned?’ ‘We now have genome sequences of about 70 or 80 percent of the mammoth genome. The parts that we couldn’t sequence are in parts of the genome that are too broken up and confused to be able to figure out where the sequences we’re obtaining map to. My personal feeling is that if we tried to create a cloned mammoth, it would really be very unfair to the poor individual, because they would certainly die of errors in the DNA sequence that were stuck into their genome.’ http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/02/27/elephant-dna-mammoth

    Reply
  68. This guy has studied modern elephant DNA and that from recently extinct woolly mammoths mastodons and straight-tusked elephants. He says the different species have mixed and mingled at different times down the ages but concludes -‘ What would you say to those of us who are very eager to see a mammoth or mastodon cloned?”We now have genome sequences of about 70 or 80 percent of the mammoth genome. The parts that we couldn’t sequence are in parts of the genome that are too broken up and confused to be able to figure out where the sequences we’re obtaining map to. My personal feeling is that if we tried to create a cloned mammoth it would really be very unfair to the poor individual because they would certainly die of errors in the DNA sequence that were stuck into their genome.’http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/02/27/elephant-dna-mammoth

    Reply
  69. I wouldn’t bother for the advertised purpose, but, who knows, maybe they’re yummy.

    Not really serious about that, elephants are high enough the intelligence scale that I’d feel bad about eating them. They should concentrate on bringing back the passenger pigeon and dodo.

    Reply
  70. ‘closer to success’….so is nuclear fusion, as we’ve been repeatedly told for decades now.

    ‘Close to success cloned Mammoths’ are a lot like pitching for mining He3 on the Moon. We don’t have He3 reactors, so why bother until we actually do?

    🙂

    Reply
  71. Huh? You are suddenly believing published science now? I thought climate scientists were in a global conspiracy to fool the public into creating a socialist world government?? “unless the climate starts to warm again’ Well I guess if you are taking science seriously now, then you should consider just as seriously all the papers now showing that there was no hiatus. Wiki sums it up and provides the refs. ‘The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed “hiatus” since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend,[24] and 2016 was even slightly warmer. In January 2017, a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause, with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26] An April 2017 study found the data consistent with a steady warming trend globally since the 1970s, with fluctuations within the expected range of short term variability.[27] A November 2017 joint study by scientists at the University of Fairbanks and Beijing University found that when missing data from the rapidly warming Arctic were interpolated and included in global temperature averages, the so-called hiatus disappeared entirely.[28]” Finally, the paper you cite is from back in 2015. More recent papers indicate that loss of permafrost has a higher sensitivity to temperature than previous estimates. e.g. An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming S. E. Chadburn, E. J. Burke, P. M. Cox, P. Friedlingstein, G. Hugelius & S. Westermann Nature Climate Change volume 7, pages 340–344 (2017)

    Reply
  72. Huh?You are suddenly believing published science now? I thought climate scientists were in a global conspiracy to fool the public into creating a socialist world government??unless the climate starts to warm again’Well I guess if you are taking science seriously now” then you should consider just as seriously all the papers now showing that there was no hiatus. Wiki sums it up and provides the refs.’The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed “”hiatus”””” since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend””[24] and 2016 was even slightly warmer. In January 2017 a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26] An April 2017 study found the data consistent with a steady warming trend globally since the 1970s with fluctuations within the expected range of short term variability.[27] A November 2017 joint study by scientists at the University of Fairbanks and Beijing University found that when missing data from the rapidly warming Arctic were interpolated and included in global temperature averages”” the so-called hiatus disappeared entirely.[28]””””Finally”” the paper you cite is from back in 2015. More recent papers indicate that loss of permafrost has a higher sensitivity to temperature than previous estimates.e.g. An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warmingS. E. Chadburn E. J. Burke P. M. Cox P. Friedlingstein G. Hugelius & S. WestermannNature Climate Change volume 7″” pages 340–344 (2017)”””””””

    Reply
  73. I think that the herbivores eat the plants that melt the permafrost when growing. probably bringing more in reindeer or other similar herbivors can do the job, No need to wait till we bring back to life the mamoth with ton of genetic disease for that.

    Reply
  74. I think that the herbivores eat the plants that melt the permafrost when growing. probably bringing more in reindeer or other similar herbivors can do the job No need to wait till we bring back to life the mamoth with ton of genetic disease for that.

    Reply
  75. Oh, I agree, if the problem is real, this isn’t going to be implemented fast enough.

    Looking at their progress, they’re adding one gene complex at a time, testing out the effects in tissue culture. They might try a full embryo in a couple of years.

    At best bringing back the mammoth would be a long term project to restore the tundra, not a solution to an immediate problem. Like you throw a tarp over a hole in your roof before a storm, and rebuild the roof later.

    Reply
  76. “Most projections are that dry areas will get drier, wet areas will get wetter”

    I doubt it. In the last glacial period the sahara got drier and expanded massively. As it got warmer it shrunk. It makes sense that getting even warmer would continue this trend.

    Reply
  77. Most projections are that dry areas will get drier, wet areas will get wetter, and when rain comes it will be all at once, resulting in flooding and erosion.

    This is not conducive to good farming production. Yes, Canada might benefit, but billions of people in Africa and Asia in particular will have a rough go of it. Australia will face more droughts.

    You might not care about coastal cities, but insurance companies and governments do. Inland communities will end up paying one way or another for flood control and relocation efforts.

    Reply
  78. Oneill has it right. This is useful for study, but certainly is a long way from being implemented. And when they do try to create a mammoth (it probably will happen at some point), it will be a mammoth/elephant hybrid. Basically a hairy elephant that might be cold tolerant, but it’s not going to be a 100% faithful reproduction of the mammoth.

    There are other extinct species that are actually closer to being brought back, and those are ones that went extinct in the last couple hundred years.

    Bottom line, by the time this gets off the ground, they get a breeding population of mammoths, and they start increasing in number, whatever is going to happen to the Arctic will have already happened.

    Reply
  79. No, it isn’t shade. It’s about disrupting the snow cover. During winter, the ground is covered in snow (in these permafrost areas). BUT snow is actually a pretty good insulator. So you’ve got freezing arctic winter air above the snow that is 20 degrees colder (proper degrees or Fahrenheit I don’t know) that should be cooling the ground down but isn’t because it’s protected by the snow. Don’t get it wrong, the ground is still frozen, but without the snow it would be 20 degrees colder still. Then, during the summer, the ground starts to thaw. The permafrost isn’t so perma any more. But if the ground was starting the spring 20 degrees colder (because it was superchilled during winter, because no snow) then it would take months longer to warm up to the point of thawing, so the permafrost would stay frozen all summer until winter started again. So having mammoths (and presumably mastodon, furry rhino, Andrewsarchus, other ancient beasts) will chew up the snow cover and pack it down, resulting in less insulation and more freezing of the permafrost.

    Reply
  80. No it isn’t shade.It’s about disrupting the snow cover. During winter the ground is covered in snow (in these permafrost areas). BUT snow is actually a pretty good insulator.So you’ve got freezing arctic winter air above the snow that is 20 degrees colder (proper degrees or Fahrenheit I don’t know) that should be cooling the ground down but isn’t because it’s protected by the snow. Don’t get it wrong the ground is still frozen but without the snow it would be 20 degrees colder still.Then during the summer the ground starts to thaw. The permafrost isn’t so perma any more.But if the ground was starting the spring 20 degrees colder (because it was superchilled during winter because no snow) then it would take months longer to warm up to the point of thawing so the permafrost would stay frozen all summer until winter started again.So having mammoths (and presumably mastodon furry rhino Andrewsarchus other ancient beasts) will chew up the snow cover and pack it down resulting in less insulation and more freezing of the permafrost.

    Reply
  81. Actually, this is one of the closer to success “de-extinction” projects, thanks to effectively flash frozen mammoths being found in ice, and their close genetic relationship to modern elephants.

    Reply
  82. Actually this is one of the closer to success de-extinction”” projects”” thanks to effectively flash frozen mammoths being found in ice”” and their close genetic relationship to modern elephants.”””

    Reply
  83. The Idea is that the Mammoths smash the snow therefore compressing the snow and ice and cooling the ground. They also break tree’s constantly meaning more grassland and permafrost.

    Reply
  84. The Idea is that the Mammoths smash the snow therefore compressing the snow and ice and cooling the ground. They also break tree’s constantly meaning more grassland and permafrost.

    Reply
  85. I remember reading about this once before. I think the idea is that grasslands reflect a lot more light than trees, and therefore lower the temperature considerably.

    Reply
  86. I remember reading about this once before. I think the idea is that grasslands reflect a lot more light than trees and therefore lower the temperature considerably.

    Reply
  87. “The ice is slowly melting and when it reaches a certain point and it lets all this out it’s gonna be really really bad for everyone.”

    Except for the tundras themselves which would be liberated from the ice and would flourish…
    The same for Antarctica, but it would take hundred or thousands of years to completely melt.
    And the Sahara, which would turn green because of the global increase in precipitation.

    And ultimately the whole planet would flourish because of the much increased rains.

    Only coastal cities would be screwed of which I don’t give the slightest crap about.

    Reply
  88. Okay… if I’m reading this correctly, they are saying that the animals would provide shade that in turn would prevent the melting? Over tens of thousands of square miles?? Oh boy… Alternative: Essay by Eric Worrall A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures. The abstract from the paper; Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change, but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics. Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html Unfortunately the main paper is paywalled, but I think we get the general idea. And unless the climate starts to warm again, we won’t even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper. For the last few years, alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare, with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes, but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the “permafrost bomb” will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.

    Reply
  89. Okay… if I’m reading this correctly they are saying that the animals would provide shade that in turn would prevent the melting? Over tens of thousands of square miles?? Oh boy… Alternative:Essay by Eric WorrallA new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures.The abstract from the paper;Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.htmlUnfortunately the main paper is paywalled but I think we get the general idea. And unless the climate starts to warm again we won’t even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper.For the last few years alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the “permafrost bomb” will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.”

    Reply
  90. So all we need is, what, 10000 or so mammoth? But how long would it take to breed a genetically diverse population that size? Even if the population could double every 20 years, I think we’re looking at around 260 years…

    I guess you could create 10000 genetically altered elephant embryos and implant them in 10000 elephants?

    Reply
  91. This guy has studied modern elephant DNA and that from recently extinct woolly mammoths, mastodons and straight-tusked elephants. He says the different species have mixed and mingled at different times down the ages, but concludes –
    ‘ What would you say to those of us who are very eager to see a mammoth or mastodon cloned?’
    ‘We now have genome sequences of about 70 or 80 percent of the mammoth genome. The parts that we couldn’t sequence are in parts of the genome that are too broken up and confused to be able to figure out where the sequences we’re obtaining map to. My personal feeling is that if we tried to create a cloned mammoth, it would really be very unfair to the poor individual, because they would certainly die of errors in the DNA sequence that were stuck into their genome.’
    http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/02/27/elephant-dna-mammoth

    Reply
  92. Huh?

    You are suddenly believing published science now? I thought climate scientists were in a global conspiracy to fool the public into creating a socialist world government??

    “unless the climate starts to warm again’

    Well I guess if you are taking science seriously now, then you should consider just as seriously all the papers now showing that there was no hiatus.

    Wiki sums it up and provides the refs.

    ‘The warmth of 2015 largely ended any remaining scientific credibility of claims that the supposed “hiatus” since 1998 had any significance for the long-term warming trend,[24] and 2016 was even slightly warmer. In January 2017, a study published in the journal Science Advances cast further doubt on the existence of a recent pause, with more evidence that ocean temperatures have been underestimated.[25][26] An April 2017 study found the data consistent with a steady warming trend globally since the 1970s, with fluctuations within the expected range of short term variability.[27] A November 2017 joint study by scientists at the University of Fairbanks and Beijing University found that when missing data from the rapidly warming Arctic were interpolated and included in global temperature averages, the so-called hiatus disappeared entirely.[28]”

    Finally, the paper you cite is from back in 2015. More recent papers indicate that loss of permafrost has a higher sensitivity to temperature than previous estimates.

    e.g. An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming
    S. E. Chadburn, E. J. Burke, P. M. Cox, P. Friedlingstein, G. Hugelius & S. Westermann
    Nature Climate Change volume 7, pages 340–344 (2017)

    Reply
  93. I think that the herbivores eat the plants that melt the permafrost when growing. probably bringing more in reindeer or other similar herbivors can do the job, No need to wait till we bring back to life the mamoth with ton of genetic disease for that.

    Reply
  94. No, it isn’t shade.

    It’s about disrupting the snow cover.

    During winter, the ground is covered in snow (in these permafrost areas). BUT snow is actually a pretty good insulator.
    So you’ve got freezing arctic winter air above the snow that is 20 degrees colder (proper degrees or Fahrenheit I don’t know) that should be cooling the ground down but isn’t because it’s protected by the snow.
    Don’t get it wrong, the ground is still frozen, but without the snow it would be 20 degrees colder still.
    Then, during the summer, the ground starts to thaw. The permafrost isn’t so perma any more.
    But if the ground was starting the spring 20 degrees colder (because it was superchilled during winter, because no snow) then it would take months longer to warm up to the point of thawing, so the permafrost would stay frozen all summer until winter started again.

    So having mammoths (and presumably mastodon, furry rhino, Andrewsarchus, other ancient beasts) will chew up the snow cover and pack it down, resulting in less insulation and more freezing of the permafrost.

    Reply
  95. The Idea is that the Mammoths smash the snow therefore compressing the snow and ice and cooling the ground. They also break tree’s constantly meaning more grassland and permafrost.

    Reply
  96. Okay… if I’m reading this correctly, they are saying that the animals would provide shade that in turn would prevent the melting? Over tens of thousands of square miles?? Oh boy… Alternative:

    Essay by Eric Worrall

    A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures.

    The abstract from the paper;

    Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change, but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.

    Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html

    Unfortunately the main paper is paywalled, but I think we get the general idea. And unless the climate starts to warm again, we won’t even get the slow release predicted by the authors of the paper.

    For the last few years, alarmists have been test marketing various ideas to replace the failed carbon scare, with mostly unencouraging results. Methane appeared to be one of the big hopes, but this new paper eliminates any serious possibility that the “permafrost bomb” will be a viable replacement for the carbon scare.

    Reply

Leave a Comment