Comment by phkahler

You make two mistakes here which are very common in this topic. One, just because there have been plants where there is permafrost before, doesn't mean there is nothing new about this event. Everybody who studies a little bit about climate change will soon learn that the real problem isn't the change perse, its how fast it is happening. And that is also quite unprecedented.

Second, and most fatally, yes there was a lot of vegetation there. There was also a time when there were plants on the antarctic. The sea levels were 20 meter higher back then, which may give you a clue it could be a slight problem, as you yourself indicate.

There were mass extinction events before. Natural or not, some people might say they would feel humankind going extinct or almost so is exactly what a catastrophe is, pointing out something similar has happened before doesn't make it any better.

So no, the narrative doesn't fall apart. Furthermore, it is not a narrative in the first place, it is a risk assesment based on scientific understanding. There is no drama, just facts and theories. The hand-wavy 'it is all natural thus its good because we live in a just world and that magically makes everything okay and eco-logical and stuff', now that is a narrative.

Why bother to thaw out a turkey, just throw it in the oven. It couldn't possibly matter how quickly the temperature changes.

The reason why melting permafrost is considered a global catastrophe is that it's a feedback loop that will accelerate warming. There is massive carbon that has been frozen in the permafrost. Permafrost melts > the organic matter decomposes > more CO2 released into atmosphere > warming happens faster.

Climate change in of itself is not the problem - it is the rate of change at which it will occur that is the problem such that we can't adapt to it (ie. stop populating Florida etc. etc.)

The earth was once a hot fireball, so if for any strange reason it would turn into one again we can all be relieved, say that isn't new and post funny "this is fine" dogs? What kind of logic is that.

Time scales are huge, 1 year is different than 100 years than 100000 years than 1 million years.. what's "new" is very relative, come on.

You really want to still state today that global warming (to what permafrost thawing relates) is a narrative?

> Sea levels have risen more than present levels in prior interglacial periods too, but that's another related catastrophe.

Why you mean not? Does it matter if at that time fewer than 100 millions of humans inhabitated earth, and now we have billions.. and more than the number above will be threatened by sea level rise?

I don't understand how greening formerly frozen Alaska is not part of a global catastrophe?