Permafrost melt releasing vast amounts of methane and CO2

[Nibs]

DOHA, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Permafrost lands across Siberia and Alaska that contain vast stores of carbon are beginning to thaw, bringing with it the threat of a big increase in global warming by 2100, a U.N. report said on Tuesday.

A thaw of the vast areas of permanently frozen ground in Russia, Canada, China and the United States also threatens local homes, roads, railways and oil pipelines, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said in the report which was released at the U.N. climate talks being held this week and next in Qatar.

"Permafrost has begun to thaw," Kevin Schaefer, lead author at the University of Colorado told a news conference in Doha.

An accelerating melt would free vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane which has been trapped in organic matter in the subsoil, often for thousands of years, the report said.

Warming permafrost could release the equivalent of between 43 and 135 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, by 2100. That would be up to 39 percent of annual emissions from human sources.

Permafrost now contains 1,700 billion tonnes of carbon, or twice the amount now in the atmosphere, it said.

[Artofthedeal]

perhaps permafrost melting is what caused the Medieval warming period - the warm period of history that all alarmists and warmists try to make disappear from history whenever talking about prior climate disruptions in earth's history - ie - up until man started using fossil fuels - they try and claim that there were none. Thanks for posting this Mr. Nibs - it is important that people learn about how the earth experiences these different climate changes and fluctuations, that are all due to nature and a natural climate cycle, and have absolutely nothing to do with any activity of man.

[ForestfortheTrees]

. . . and have absolutely nothing to do with any activity of man.

Please explain the details and source of this knowledge.

[ForestfortheTrees]

I recently found a new website that has been put up by the Dutch government called Climate Dialog. It came about from some of the issues discovered in the IPCC reports and aims to represent the "full-range of views" by bringing in some of the descenting voices. So the first post is aboutMelting of the Arctic sea ice and has three scientists discussing their views. They are Dr. Walt Meier, Dr. Judith Curry, and Dr Ron Lindsay. It is interesting reading, and there is a great section in the comments from these scientists where they talk "What percentage of the recent decline would you attribute to anthropogenic greenhouse gases?" Guess what--nobody says zero. Judith Curry say 50% +/- 20% for which there is some agreement.

Please educate yourselves rather than listening to certain "voices" who post on this board and say anthropogenic greenhouse gases have no impact on our climate. It is complex, but there is an effect and it is important that we understand this.

[Artofthedeal]

Please explain the details and source of this knowledge.

Are you talking to me, or the OP? Because he had no details or source stating that the permafrost melting (this scam has been raging for many years now btw and is dredged up by loons every now and then as yet another in the vast arsenal of AGW boogey men) is related to any activities by man. The OP has just assumed, I guess, based on his prior posts, that this supposed melt is because of man-made global warming, yet the article doesn't mention the AGW fraud once. Why would we just assume an entire vast permafrost melt would occur just because of a tiny % increase in CO2 in the atmosphere vs prior decades? That's just crazy! Only someone incredibly gullible and silly would even think that!

[Glacier]

The climate normals are determined by averaging the 30 year period between 1981 and 2010. Amazingly, the latter 25 of those years were above normal.

[ForestfortheTrees]

The climate normals are determined by averaging the 30 year period between 1981 and 2010. Amazingly, the latter 25 of those years were below normal.

In the context of this discussion, which climate normal's are you referring to? Global? Polar?

[SmokeOnTheWater]

The request was obviously adressed to you GB .. I mean Artofdeal.

Are you talking to me, or the OP?

I don't think anyone would dispute past climate change or ice age, etc... the thing is, it's happening at such a fast rate as opposed to thousands of years between the cycles, one has to ask questions about the activity of man. No one knows for sure, so why so angry everytime the subject is approached ?

[ForestfortheTrees]

Are you talking to me, or the OP? Because he had no details or source stating that the permafrost melting (this scam has been raging for many years now btw and is dredged up by loons every now and then as yet another in the vast arsenal of AGW boogey men) is related to any activities by man. The OP has just assumed, I guess, based on his prior posts, that this supposed melt is because of man-made global warming, yet the article doesn't mention the AGW fraud once. Why would we just assume an entire vast permafrost melt would occur just because of a tiny % increase in CO2 in the atmosphere vs prior decades? That's just crazy! Only someone incredibly gullible and silly would even think that!

Art, since I quoted you it is rather obvious I am talking to you. But rather than answering the question, you use it as another opportunity to repeat your dogma. So, let me ask this a little more clearly: you state that "climate changes and fluctuations . . . are all due to nature and a natural climate cycle, and have absolutely nothing to do with any activity of man". The hypothesis of many scientists is that while climate does have natural variations, the by-product of industrialization is having an additional impact on the climate causing warming. How do you disprove this hypothesis? Because that's how science works. Come up with the data that explains whats going on and 100% excludes the impacts of humans. If this is all such a fraud and a hoax, that should be very easy to do.

[Glacier]

In the context of this discussion, which climate normal's are you referring to? Global? Polar?

Sorry, I had a typo in my post. Environment Canada, NOAA, and other such climate offices define the climate normals as a 30 year period ending at the start of the most recent decade. I suspect that in this case, they are using a much longer time frame (I'm guessing 1900 to 2010).

[Nibs]

The hypothesis of many scientists is that while climate does have natural variations, the by-product of industrialization is having an additional impact on the climate causing warming. How do you disprove this hypothesis? Because that's how science works. Come up with the data that explains whats going on and 100% excludes the impacts of humans. If this is all such a fraud and a hoax, that should be very easy to do.

Your challenge is an excellent one, but I suspect it will be met with a thunderous silence.

[Artofthedeal]

... the thing is, it's happening at such a fast rate as opposed to thousands of years between the cycles, ?

Says who? The very people who are lying about everything else related to AGW. Why do you just arbitrarily believe this nonsense when absolutely zero proof that "it's happening at such a fast rate" is even true? This is just another lie manufactured by the scam artists behind the manufactured "consensus" and the "extreme" weather loons. As I said in another thread - the main thing that the AGW fraudsters have learned is that if you repeat a lie enough times, eventually people will believe it.

[Artofthedeal]

Your challenge is an excellent one, but I suspect it will be met with a thunderous silence.

what a surprise Forest - the Westboro Baptist section of the Church of Global Warming chimes in to support your ludicrous "challenge". Excellent turnabout though - a tact I've seen only too many times: "We have no proof to back up anything we say, but you have to be the one to show that we have no proof and are lying". Good grief, what a joke. How about just have one - ONE - prediction come true. How about that. Instead of predicting that snow and ice are a thing of the past in England, and then when that turns out to be not true, just admit you were wrong. Don't come up with some ludicrous theory that melting ice in Northern Canada causes cold winters in England so that's why 12 years later there's still snow and ice in England despite all of that "warming" we've had - how can people not see how seriously silly this stupid AGW theory is? I know - because they want to believe in something so bad, to replace that empty void in their lives, that it doesn't matter.

[hobbyguy]

Arty, here's a conundrum for you:

I was reading through an article based on the Vostok data that very carefully detailed why the writer felt that CO2 was not a precusor of global warming, but a lagging indicator. Very well written, and quite convincing if you ignore the errors inherent in the data (just as convincing as articles arguing the opposite IMO). What that writer did state, and here's the conundrum, was that while higher CO2 levels did not cause global warming, higher CO2 levels inhibited the ability of the earth to cool down.

My logic says: OK, due to data error margins we can not prove that rising CO2 levels cause global warming. But, even the most eloquent detractors admit that higher CO2 levels inhibit cooling. Conclusion: we don't know for sure that CO2 causes global warming, but we do apparently know for sure that CO2 levels will prevent the earth from cooling; and it follows that high CO2 levels will exacerbate global warming.

Given the fact that CO2 concentrations are headed "off the chart" due to the activities of mankind, then there is real cause for concern, whether you believe that CO2 causes global warming or not. It follows that it would prudent to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as practicable.

I am pessimistic as we may already be passing the tipping point, where our actions may be too late, but we should still try.

[Artofthedeal]

Given the fact that CO2 concentrations are headed "off the chart" due to the activities of mankind, .

here's my conundrum - whose "chart" are we talking about? Given the constant and incessant lies emanating from every facet of the AGW machine, just who can you even believe anymore? It's just lie piled on lie piled on lie. But by all means - please go and talk to China and India and convince them to stop emitting CO2. Because us bankrupting ourselves subsidizing solar and wind power, or living in caves, isn't going to make a difference to overall CO2 levels, even if this AGW fraud had any substance to it whatsoever.