<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for CO2 released from disappearing permafrost must be factored into climate projections]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/slip-of-the-tundra/ Sat, 24 May 2008 00:59:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/slip-of-the-tundra/1 Basic math?

"While these projections were done with one of the world's most sophisticated climate system models, the calculations do not include the feedback effect of the released carbon from the permafrost."

Evidently it is too much to expect, that scientists remember their basic math education and take it into account in climate modeling.  

The only explanation I can think of is that politics must be effecting studies like this.  Climate scientists MUST understand feedback effects and exponential change.

How do they graduate and suceed in academia without that kind of understanding?  Mind boggling.

So how do we fight the extra powerful feedback effect of GHGs like methane and nitrous oxide?  By curtailing their emissions where we can.  From the waste stream.

If 5% of our energy use was provoded by biogas, it would offset the rest of our GHG footprint and halt climate change.  And that would stop tundra, methane hydrate sea floor ice, and glacier and ice cap melting.  All exponential feedback climate changers.

We have to get a handle on the extra powerful GHGs we can control.  Biodigestors powering up tractors,trucks, trains, and grid backup with methane could get us to 5% easily.  And save oil and money.  paying its own way while turning climate disaster around.

Organic fertilizer from the biodigestors would replace ammonia fertilizer, thus curtailing nitrous oxide emissions.  This is a huge GHG effect.  Up to 2/3 the carbon sequestered by crops is negated by the nitrous oxide emitted by the ammonia fertilizer.

Across all chemical ag that has a catastrophic GHG effect.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Basic math?

"While these projections were done with one of the world's most sophisticated climate system models, the calculations do not include the feedback effect of the released carbon from the permafrost."

Evidently it is too much to expect, that scientists remember their basic math education and take it into account in climate modeling.  

The only explanation I can think of is that politics must be effecting studies like this.  Climate scientists MUST understand feedback effects and exponential change.

How do they graduate and suceed in academia without that kind of understanding?  Mind boggling.

So how do we fight the extra powerful feedback effect of GHGs like methane and nitrous oxide?  By curtailing their emissions where we can.  From the waste stream.

If 5% of our energy use was provoded by biogas, it would offset the rest of our GHG footprint and halt climate change.  And that would stop tundra, methane hydrate sea floor ice, and glacier and ice cap melting.  All exponential feedback climate changers.

We have to get a handle on the extra powerful GHGs we can control.  Biodigestors powering up tractors,trucks, trains, and grid backup with methane could get us to 5% easily.  And save oil and money.  paying its own way while turning climate disaster around.

Organic fertilizer from the biodigestors would replace ammonia fertilizer, thus curtailing nitrous oxide emissions.  This is a huge GHG effect.  Up to 2/3 the carbon sequestered by crops is negated by the nitrous oxide emitted by the ammonia fertilizer.

Across all chemical ag that has a catastrophic GHG effect.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #2 by Steve Bloom http://www.grist.org/article/slip-of-the-tundra/ Sat, 24 May 2008 07:56:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/slip-of-the-tundra/2 Public copy of 2005 paper and new one

The 2005 paper is here.

I also noticed this new one still in press.  I haven't had a chance to read it, but likely it would worsen the picture.

Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss

Abstract:  Coupled climate models and recent observational evidence suggest that Arctic sea ice may undergo abrupt periods of loss within fifty years.  Here, we evaluate the impact of rapid sea ice loss on terrestrial Arctic climate and ground thermal state in the Community Climate System Model.  We find that western Arctic land warming trends during rapid sea ice loss are 3.5 times greater than secular 21st century climate-change trends outside these periods.  The accelerated warming signal extends up to 1500km inland and is apparent throughout most of the year, peaking in autumn.  Idealized experiments using the Community Land Model, with improved permafrost dynamics, indicate that an accelerated warming period substantially increases ground heat accumulation - the earlier the event the greater the long-term impact.  For warm permafrost, enhanced heat accumulation can lead to rapid degradation.  For colder ground, heat accumulation preconditions permafrost for earlier and/or more rapid degradation under continued warming.

]]> Public copy of 2005 paper and new one

The 2005 paper is here.

I also noticed this new one still in press.  I haven't had a chance to read it, but likely it would worsen the picture.

Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss

Abstract:  Coupled climate models and recent observational evidence suggest that Arctic sea ice may undergo abrupt periods of loss within fifty years.  Here, we evaluate the impact of rapid sea ice loss on terrestrial Arctic climate and ground thermal state in the Community Climate System Model.  We find that western Arctic land warming trends during rapid sea ice loss are 3.5 times greater than secular 21st century climate-change trends outside these periods.  The accelerated warming signal extends up to 1500km inland and is apparent throughout most of the year, peaking in autumn.  Idealized experiments using the Community Land Model, with improved permafrost dynamics, indicate that an accelerated warming period substantially increases ground heat accumulation - the earlier the event the greater the long-term impact.  For warm permafrost, enhanced heat accumulation can lead to rapid degradation.  For colder ground, heat accumulation preconditions permafrost for earlier and/or more rapid degradation under continued warming.

]]> Comment #3 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/slip-of-the-tundra/ Sat, 24 May 2008 14:48:48 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/slip-of-the-tundra/3 Units of measurement problem

Umm, I don't think CO2 is directly emitted by warming and rotting permafrost. Methane is. You can turn that into an equivalent mass of carbon or a greenhouse reactivity (e.g., 31 x) but it is NOT CO2 being emitted unless I am missing something.  

I'd like to see some numbers about what those emission potentials for permafrost methane are, since it is my understanding that freshwater and coastal swamps are much more productive at bubbling up methane. I respect UCAR as an organization but tend to wonder, since I don't have an extra couple hundred to through down on such academic papers.

And one has to ask, since ordinary swamps are such heavy producers of methane, yet we drained millions and millions of acres of it, why the planet didn't "exponentially" turn stone cold as some kind of reverse "tipping point." Perhaps it is because the atmospheric half-life of methane is much shorter than that for CO2?  -sam

Onward through the fog

]]> Units of measurement problem

Umm, I don't think CO2 is directly emitted by warming and rotting permafrost. Methane is. You can turn that into an equivalent mass of carbon or a greenhouse reactivity (e.g., 31 x) but it is NOT CO2 being emitted unless I am missing something.  

I'd like to see some numbers about what those emission potentials for permafrost methane are, since it is my understanding that freshwater and coastal swamps are much more productive at bubbling up methane. I respect UCAR as an organization but tend to wonder, since I don't have an extra couple hundred to through down on such academic papers.

And one has to ask, since ordinary swamps are such heavy producers of methane, yet we drained millions and millions of acres of it, why the planet didn't "exponentially" turn stone cold as some kind of reverse "tipping point." Perhaps it is because the atmospheric half-life of methane is much shorter than that for CO2?  -sam

Onward through the fog

]]> Comment #4 by lutzpeters http://www.grist.org/article/slip-of-the-tundra/ Mon, 26 May 2008 22:51:34 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/slip-of-the-tundra/4 Slip of the tundra

The magnitude of carbon emissions from tundra is also supported by the Russian Academy of Sciences in Environment New Service, 9/7/06, "Melting Russian Permafrost Could Accelarate Global Warming". The estimate there is that the thawing Siberian tundra alone could release some 500 billion tons of carbon. Citation in my book "Klima 2055". I would like to send Joseph Romm a copy if he would give me his address.

Dr. Lutz Peters (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_nhszi0BZiT').innerHTML = output; //]]>

]]> Slip of the tundra

The magnitude of carbon emissions from tundra is also supported by the Russian Academy of Sciences in Environment New Service, 9/7/06, "Melting Russian Permafrost Could Accelarate Global Warming". The estimate there is that the thawing Siberian tundra alone could release some 500 billion tons of carbon. Citation in my book "Klima 2055". I would like to send Joseph Romm a copy if he would give me his address.

Dr. Lutz Peters (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_nhszi0BZiT').innerHTML = output; //]]>

]]>