The argument Kerry has been making - Russia is 63% permafrost, if permafrost melts, they will had a lot of damage, is a faulty one.
First only about 30% is real permafrost, the rest is like seasonal or partial permafrost, whatever that means.
Secondly, the permafrost map well correlates with practically no settlements. Basically, permafrost makes land useless!
Russians would love to melt that permafrost and get something out of that 30% to 63% of Russia. Even if few buildings in that area sink!
Only Kerry can think otherwise!
Well, if it were to melt, then it would NOT be ‘permafrost’ right? Can we rename it tempofrost? :>} In either case, what sort of lethal microbes could be waiting to attack after the melt? Sounds like a Michael Crichton story.