Recently, some poor reporting of a new study has set the blogosphere aflutter about “lower sensitivity” of the climate to greenhouse gases.
Joe Romm at Climateprogress has a great analysis of what the study says and doesn’t say. One of the key pieces of the puzzle – the new research, by Schmittner et al, summarizes the warming effect of “fast” climate feedbacks, like sea ice and water vapor, but leaves out the slower, longer term feedbacks like tundra melt, and the accompanying methane release. ( see the video above – methane is a greenhouse gas much more powerful than CO2)
Now, news from the University of Alaska Fairbanks underlines the dangers of ignoring the “slow” feedbacks, which may not be so slow, after all…
FAIRBANKS — An international group of researchers believes greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost will be released at a much faster rate than previously estimated, which could have significant implications for climate change projections.
A survey of 41 scientists — including seven University of Alaska Fairbanks researchers — estimates the amount of carbon released from thawing permafrost by 2100 will be 1.7 to 5.2 times larger than previously estimated. Their conclusions, reported Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature, describe permafrost thawing as a likely accelerator of global warming.
“Our collective estimate is that carbon will be released more quickly than models suggest, and at levels that are cause for serious concern,” the article states.
The higher figures come about because of an ongoing reevaluation of the carbon stored in permafrost.
In most soils such material is typically in the top several feet, but in frozen soils those carbon-filled sediments can be much deeper.
Because of that, the estimated amount of carbon stored in northern soils has tripled in recent years, to roughly 1,700 billion tons. That’s four times more than all the carbon emitted by human activity since the Industrial Revolution and twice as much as is currently present in the atmosphere.
And the picture is even more alarming for the end of the century. The scientists calculate that about than 300 billion metric tons of carbon will belch from the thawing Earth from now until 2100.
Adding in that gas means that warming would happen “20 to 30 percent faster than from fossil fuel emissions alone,” said Edward Schuur of the University of Florida. “You are significantly speeding things up by releasing this carbon.”
Usually the first few to several inches of permafrost thaw in the summer, but scientists are now looking at up to 10 feet of soft unfrozen ground because of warmer temperatures, he said. The gases come from decaying plants that have been stuck below frozen ground for millennia.
Worse than we thought …yeah, right. As if it’d ever been anything else according to Neverwrong Romm.
Come up for air have you, Maurizio? You had better take this opportunity to apply some facial moisturiser (silica is a dreadful desiccant).
an assertion without evidence from a self-described know-it-all (omnologos) about Joe Romm, who provides documentation for everything he posts. Color me unimpressed.
“Recently, some poor reporting…”
“USA Today: The scientists calculate that about than 300 billion metric tons of carbon will belch from the thawing Earth from now until 2100.”
Wait, what? Do scientists really use such terminology? Ah, no, it’s journalists. If journalists — whose tools of trade are words — can use words incorrectly, how often do they misinform by getting the numbers wrong, too? (*cough* Delingpole *cough*)
I would have liked them to use the word fart. Teehee.
Please note that these estimates – as scary as they are – are only about land-based deposits, and do not include the staggering amounts of methane already starting to bubble up from under the sea.
Humanity is in very big trouble.
The Homer Simpson in me watches that video and thinks…”Oooh, Flaming Lake Flatulance!” That looks like fun.
The concerned denizen of planet earth in me listens to what she’s saying and shudders while the color drains from my face.
I lift up my eyes to the hills – where does my help come from?
Where is the experimental evidence that shows that Methane is a more powerful “greenhouse gas than CO2?
Where does all the methane go that is released from every lake,ocean, pond, swamp, march, leaf pill, anerobic digester, cow fart, etc, the concentration in the atmosphere is in the parts per billion?
Where is the experiment that proves that the Hypothese of the “greenhouse gas effect exists”?
The EPA has a library of about 300,000 technical papers, in the pile is at least one technical paper that shows that the methane is oxidized to CO2 and water by natural reaction to UV and ozone. Now what the hell is the problem?
Also look up the work of Alan Carlin who was kicked out of the EPA after 38 years because he told the truth in a paper that was release in 2009 that said there is no data that shows that CO2 causes atmospheric heating. More than 70 peer reviewed papers are listed as references.
Mann-made global warming is a political hoax.
Carlin at the EPA – one of my favorite Crock videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNbjqSyWdcs
as to the greenhouse “hypotheses”, you have some
homework to do – about 150 years worth.
start by googling John Tyndall.
We’ll wait.
cleanwaterr2
Mann-made global warming is a political hoax.?
Human induced carbon into the atmosphere is NO different then carbon induced into the atmosphere through natural events (tectonic/volcanic) there is one major difference- the natural cycle can take 20,000 years or more- humans are doing the same thing in less then 100 years.
Learn some science fool.
Peter S. Mizla : Where is your experiment that shows that the “greenhouse gas effect” exists- until you can produce the experiment you are the fool.
CO2 levels have been much higher and there has been no catastrophic results- you are believing in a fairy-tale produced by the IPCC and promoted by the clown Al Gore.
I’m sure you have no idea that Al Gore’s book “Inconvenient lies ” has been show to be just political propaganda in a British Court and is banned from use in British science classes.
AS the last “ice age ” ended about 10,000 years ago and the “Little Ice age” occurred about 200 years ago , you need to do some reading of geological studies, none have been able to prove that there is any connection between the natural heating of the earth and the concentrations of CO2 or methane.
Peter, I presume you are an accomplished atmospheric physicist and know all about the work of Robert W. Wood , Dr. Nasif Nahle,and Dr. Niels Bohr & the Bohr model which shows that the “greenhouse gas effect can not happen.
I’ll match your lack of knowledge of science to my dog. I know with her understanding of physics she can outrun a police car up to 36 miles per hour. ( she is not a greyhound)
“…you need to do some reading of geological studies, none have been able to prove that there is any connection between the natural heating of the earth and the concentrations of CO2 or methane…”
This fine sounding statement tells me two things: You are trying to sound knowledgeable but are actually pig-ignorant. This must be an undisputable fact because:
(1) If the study of palaeoclimatology tells us anything it is that the Earth does indeed regulate its temperature by transferring CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans; and
(2) If methane had not been proven to be more than 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas landfill site operators would not have been flaring it or burning it to produce electricity for 20 odd years.
Or are we all mistaken about these things as well?
Are you, in fact, the source of all true knowledge in the Universe? With apologies to Descartes: I think not, therefore you ain’t!
hey cleanwater2
Take your act somewhere else, you putz.
Clearwater2, as I have repeatedly said to Maurizio and Dave Burton, your entire thesis is founded on the a priori assumption that the overwhelming consensus view of CO2 as the main driver of the climate change we are now seeing (i.e. having been delayed by the inertia of the oceans and pollution of the atmosphere) is either a politically-motivated scam or a colossal mistake.
However, there is no actual evidence of either of these things and, far more importantly, as Barry Bickmore points out, climate change “sceptics” are not like Galileo – science has moved on, so you should too: You so-called “sceptics” are not fighting the Establishment. You are, knowingly or otherwise, fighting for the Establishment: Today, however, the Establishment is not the highly-conservative and anti-intellectual Church of Rome, it is the highly-conservative and anti-intellectual neo-conservative alliance with the fossil fuel lobby.
Therefore, you seriously need to wake-up and realise who it is that has been lying to you for so long. You have got this whole thing back-to-front, inside-out, and upside-down: There is no solid evidence for a left-wing conspiracy to tax and regulate people more and make us all poorer. However, there is solid evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to tax and regulate business less and make a minority even richer; because we fail to question the wisdom of burning all fossil fuels (i.e. just because we can, does not mean that we should).
Roger Lambert – you can’t even be bothered to google “omnology”. Good to know.
Martin Lack – have you noticed those people in Durban? It’s the seventeenth time they meet up to discuss the same thing. It’s 194 countries, thousands and thousands of delegates. If that’s not The Establishment, I do not know what is 😎 . I also see you slip back into accusing me of conspiratorial thinking, ie you havent’ understood a word I have ever said. Blame this foreigner, go on.
Maurizio, most of the time you just make unfalsifiable or self-referential statements of opinion. Whereas, when I challenge either you or Dave to falsify my statements of historical fact, you ignore me.
If you had bothered to do more than skim over one or two things I have written, you would know that I am not overly-impressed with the IPCC, which is indeed part of the Establishment. Hence its complete inability to get anything useful done (i.e. as per this excellent comment/quotation posted by neilrieck).
So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it (although I suspect your filthy habit may be killing your brain cells at an unsustainable rate)!
?? So I am fighting for the IPCC?
Lucky me!
As usual, you are evading the issue by pretending(?) to be ignorant of the point being made (i.e. that the US government effectively has a veto over everything report the IPCC produces). You are fighting for the Establishment because you support the status quo: Establishment, status quo, and Conservatism – by definition they are all the same thing – an absence of change… Now do you get it?
You insist you are not a conspiracist but, if so, can you indulge my curiosity for a moment and – very simply if you don’t mind – tell me exactly how do you explain the last 30 years of argument over climate science? Remember – no appeals to conspiracy theory or claims that you know better than the experts themselves are allowed.
One other point worthy of note… The IPCC may be fatally-compromised by the fact that every report it produces is then neutered by “experts” appointed by governments trying not to “frighten the horses“. However, you were actually suggesting that the UNFCCC process is part of the Establishment, which it is not: It is an International collaborative process seeking to reach agreement on collective action to tackle climate change. It has failed because, unlike action on CFCs or even acid rain, tackling the cause of climate change poses a fundamental challenge to the status quo – which is why the fossil fuel lobby has fought so hard to undermine it.
Again, I would like to see you try and falsify this historical analysis.