Super-size deposits of frozen carbon threat to climate change
June 30, 2009The vast amount of carbon stored in the arctic and boreal regions of the world is more than double that previously estimated, according to a study published this week.
The amount of carbon in frozen soils, sediments and river deltas (permafrost) raises new concerns over the role of the northern regions as future sources of greenhouse gases.
"We now estimate the deposits contain over 1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere", said Dr. Charles Tarnocai, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, and lead author.
Dr. Pep Canadell, Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project at CSIRO, Australia, and co-author of the study says that the existence of these super-sized deposits of frozen carbon means that any thawing of permafrost due to global warming may lead to significant emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
Carbon deposits frozen thousands of years ago can easily break down when permafrost thaws releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, according to another recent study by some of the same authors.
"Radioactive carbon dating shows that most of the carbon dioxide currently emitted by thawing soils in Alaska was formed and frozen thousands of years ago. The carbon dating demonstrates how easily carbon decomposes when soils thaw under warmer conditions," said Professor Ted Schuur, University of Florida and co-author of the paper.
The authors point out the large uncertainties surrounding the extent to which permafrost carbon thawing could further accelerate climate change.
"Permafrost carbon is a bit of a wildcard in the efforts to predict future climate change," said Dr Canadell. "All evidence to date shows that carbon in permafrost is likely to play a significant role in the 21st century climate given the large carbon deposits, the readiness of its organic matter to release greenhouse gases when thawed, and the fact that high latitudes will experience the largest increase in air temperature of all regions."
Carbon in permafrost is found largely in northern regions including Canada, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, Scandinavia and USA.
The carbon assessment is published this week in the journal of "Global Biogeochemical Cycles" of the American Geophysical Union, and the radiocarbon study was recently published in the journal of Nature.
Source: Global Carbon Project
Sep 12, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
On the other hand it seems that it's not a question if that permafrost factor will be played out or not. It's just a question of when it will play out.
Our only hope could be to find a way to begin lowering the CO2 in air in very near future, preferably today.
In every corner of the internet, there's always a handful of big oil fundamentalists preaching the gospel of global warming denial.
Yes.
Unfortunately we can only guess about the extent to which our CO2 emissions impact the climate.
Science cannot answer this question as we don't have experimentally verified climate models. We do have some models but to know if they are worth anything we have to first compare their predictions with reality on numerous occasions. In Science wrong models outnumber correct ones by a very large margin so untested models simply cannot be relied upon. Unfortunately due to timescale of climate changes it will take a long time before we have reliable climate models but there is little we can do about it.
However, more recent observations from thousands of sites with very statistically significant data combined with newer satellite information shows an enormous signal to noise ratio that is increasing with time.
It is a fact that we can never absolutely prove that increasing carbon dioxide levels are causing this unprecedented warming. All we can ever do is eliminate as possible contributors natural phenomenon like the sun increasing its output, orbital fluctuations, etc.
But the point is, at what point do you start admitting to the 99.9% explanation or cling to the .1% idea? Nearly all scientists have already been convinced. The only real deniers at this point are politicians and bloggers that haven't done any investigations on their own. I have looked at the data and I am getting very scared for my children. And my grandchildren.
The trouble with models is that they're not realistic.
I can make a model say anything I want it to by simply changing one of the millions of variables and coefficients involved with weight of feedbacks, size of cloud particles, whether rain drops can fall faster than terminal velocity, etc.
Climatology, as it is, is an incomplete science. Until recently we thought rain could not fall faster than terminal velocity under any circumstances. Now we're finding it's quite common, creating a need to revisit every piece of data we have in regards to precipitation.
I don't discount that anthropogenic driven climate change is possible. As a matter of fact I know it's real and can point to evidence of it.
I do discount that one can measure a global temperature with the current technology and infrastructure, I also discount that CO2 is anywhere near potent enough to cause GW, especially when the burden of evidence is to the contrary. Many people use terms like "unprecedented warming" to descibe an event that has occured multiple times in recent history (3 known periods since 1000 AD).
There are so many things that are completely up in the air in regards to our understanding of climate, that it is utterly ludicrous to run full steam into a small assortment of potential "renewable" energy infrastructures while discounting well known and established clean energy infrastructures (breeder-design nuclear for example). Further, you'll have to explain what you mean by the below comment snip.
99.9% and 0.1% of what?
The NCEE's release on AR4/and the subsequent EPA TSB
http://cei.org/ce...-004.pdf
warning - this is a long read and requires adobe acrobat.
The seas should return to historic levels, but unfortunately mankind built his cities during a low point of the climate cycle, and will likely need to move inland a bit.
I guess it's all in the attitude, "global warming" really shouldn't be presented as a hysterical emergency when it's simply the planet following the same patterns its followed for eons. Do we really have any sensible justification for panic? Does it make any sense for us to fear it?