There was a book review in The New York Times last week by Cornelia Dean which began:
“When coastal engineers decide whether to dredge sand and pump it onto an eroded beach, they use mathematical models to predict how much sand they will need, when and where they must apply it, the rate it will move and how long the project will survive in the face of coastal storms and erosion.
Orrin H. Pilkey, a coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke, recommends another approach: just dredge up a lot of sand and dump it on the beach willy-nilly. This “kamikaze engineering” might not last very long, he says, but projects built according to models do not usually last very long either, and at least his approach would not lull anyone into false mathematical certitude.
Now Dr. Pilkey and his daughter Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, a geologist in the Washington State Department of Geology, have expanded this view into an overall attack on the use of computer programs to model nature. Nature is too complex, they say, and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored — whether the process is the feedback effects of cloud cover on global warming or the movement of grains of sand on a beach…
Read the complete article entitled ‘The Problems in Modeling Nature, With Its Unruly Natural Tendencies’
here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/science/20book.html?_r=3&ref=science&a&oref=slogin
You can buy the book entitled ‘Useless Arithemetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future’ at Amazon.com
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I agree. It doesn’t mean we should give up modelling altogether – it can be very informative. But let’s educate journalists and politicians in particular about the limitations of modelling. A projection is not a necessarily a prediction.
This para from the NY times article was interesting, my emphasis added:
“Two issues, the authors say, illustrate other problems with modeling. One is climate change, in which, they say, ===experts’ [or interested non-experts’] justifiable caution about model uncertainties can encourage them to ignore accumulating evidence from the real world===. The other is the movement of nuclear waste through an underground storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, not because it has failed — it has yet to be built — but because they say it is unreasonable to expect accurate predictions of what will happen far into the future — in this extreme case, tens or even hundreds of thousands of years from now. ”
What a timely conclusion, “Modeling should be transparent. That is, any interested person should be able to see and understand how the model works — what factors it weighs heaviest, what coefficients it includes, what phenomena it leaves out, and so on. Also, modelers should say explicitly what assumptions they make”.
Given that 19% of CO2 inputs to the climate models are from landuse change, and that the required IPCC assumptions are that all above ground wood volume is emitted in year one when much of it is cut for firewood 40 years later, and that landuse sequestration from regrowth and thickenning is deliberately restricted to no more than 2% of total national emissions, then reasonable men and women must conclude that projecting out 50 or 100 years is fraught with error.
Even a very conservative 10 year delay in LUC emissions could knock the models for six.
This is particularly so for Australia as the official 1999 emission from land use change was 37Mt CO2 which was about 7.5% of total emissions but this, according to Bill Burrows, ignored about 90Mt (18% of national total) of sequestration by woodland and an unknown volume by forest expansion in the wetter zones.
There is another large volume of ignored sequestration that is excluded under the quite extraordinary assumption that regrowth after clearing only takes place in the first year after the clearing event. Have these people spent any time at all on planet Earth recently?
What we can say, as a rough indicator, is that a very big proportion of our 37Mt clearing emissions
will not take place for a decade or two and at least 100Mt of sequestration has not been measured at all.
Add the 240Mt of sequestration by our territorial oceans then our 550Mt of modelled CO2 emissions has been overstated by about 360Mt, or 66%.
And that puts our net emissions per capita at about 9 tonnes CO2 each, not 27.
National Greenhouse Accounting measures anthropogenic emissions only ian, not natural emissions.
What a blinding insight, Steve, is there an encore? I could have sworn my post was about sequestration, and delayed emissions.
Sooner or later, if the IPCC is serious about managing CO2, they will need to measure all fluxes because it is the so-called “natural systems” that can contribute most to managing carbon.
But if the turkeys aren’t measuring it then they can’t monitor it. And if they can’t monitor it they can’t manage it.
At the moment they have this neat little cop out whereby the passive responses of nature to an anthropogenic carbon surplus can be conveniently dismissed as “natural” events. Ditto the 100Mt of CO2 emitted due to EPA incompetent forest and fire management this summer.
We know damned well that sequestration by range and savanna lands is huge right accross the planet. And if the carbon was not available then less would take place.
Just another example of the endemic corruption of the climate cretinazzi.
But given you don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change why do you even care; and we’re not signed up to Kyoto so who cares.
The reality is that for the climate modelling all fluxes need to be assessed but different deals will be struck on emissions per capita. You might like to get a big credit for your ocean estate but nobody is going to give it to you. Won’t happen.
But tell us Ian – do you think that if you were on the Australian negotiating team you’d convince the Europeans, China, India and the US of anything or just create a huge brawl.
In the end it’s not what’s ultimately right or wrong – do you think you can convince them?
You reckon if you were in charge of the national forest estate there would NEVER be a major fire situation.
You can rant, rave and posture all you like. But no deal = nothing happens.
The reality is that the annual CO2 growth rate is increasing. Regardless of all these nice little fiddly bio-bits.
It’s very easy to rag things but harder to build something; including any agreement. Made any agreements lately?
Its not just the media and politicians…..Now if someone would just convince the scientists of this……..It may feel right ( may even be right) to blame humans for an increase in temperature. But you sure can t use a model to prove it.
Ian,
In addition to your surprising new contribution to the topic of delayed emissions from forestry, you mentioned sequestration from woodland, forest expansion in wetter climates, and sequestration in our territorial oceans.
These would all be considered natural, and it is therefore no surprise that they are excluded.
Your argument may be that you are doing everyone a favour by not chopping down a forest, and therefore any sequestration from a forest should be accounted for. I can appreciate that argument.
However, the other side of the argument (which is currently accepted in land use carbon accounting) is that forest growth is a natural process, and unless the forest was planted as part of a re-forestation scheme, it shouldn’t be counted. I cans see the sense in that argument too.
In talking about this stuff, maybe forget about the territorial oceans sequestration as an obviously lost cause. Making such a minor correction of argument might go a long way to convincing people you are worth listening too. Any public servant who received a letter from you would simply label you as ‘nutter’ and send you a form letter response if you include that ocean stuff, no matter how sensible your forestry arguments are.
Knowing you, it will probably offend you that i would have the gall to think i could offer YOU advice. But, its worth a shot – maybe i’ll catch you on a good day.
Toby – “use a model to prove it” – hmmm haven’t learnt much have we.
Ian, while there might be delayed emissions from wood decay from land clearing these might upset our national inventory for a while but they are unlikely to impact much on the global models as they are relitively small in the global context. Given most clearing on a global basis is in rainforest and other wet forests, decay is rapid if the locals do not burn the residue. Models area already run with a range of CO2 scenarios.
Model transparency. I think Einstein said models should be as simple as possible but no simpler. The GCM models with included biospheres are complex and not transparent at least to the layman who doesn’t know about partial differential calculus.
IPCC does not measure or manage it is not its role. The IPCC assembles scientific evidence into reports. There are very good IPCC guidelines for full continental scale accounting of all emissions and sinks however Kyoto inventories are a small subset of the IPCC inventory. To the best of my knowledge Australia has never produced an IPCC inventory to the more recent IPCC standards which should include phenomena such as wood land thickening and losses due to fires (perhaps averaged over time)
Well actually Luke, I reckon ive come a long way. I have always said the models are not much use and i stick by this.
The article however makes some good points about needing to look at the evidence. The article to be fair does not say we should not use models, merely that we should not make predictions based on models.
It would be nice to hear it publicly stated by the modelers that this is the case.
This evidence however does not demonstrate that its human enhanced climate change. Yes the world has warmed up, so obviously things like glaciers are melting.
The evidence so far is not really all that strong though IMHO. We have of course discussed this before and when asked for significant evidence I am yet to be convinced.
BUT that does not mean that I do not advocate change.
However as you also agree the only way to get a change is to put up the price of energy.
How about we start with a 10c tax on petrol to fund further research into alternative energy ( not climate modelling!)? Sadly I doubt even this minor cost will be acceptable to society as a whole.
The solution? get ready to adapt if it is human enhanced, be grateful if its not.
If the recent material we have been reading re cosmic rays and there influence on cloud formation etc does turn out to be right then we should start to see a cooling trend develop in the near future. Lets hope so!
It may well be right that it is AGW but the models are not evidence of this.
Personally I do try to minimize my use of energy. I live in the country and use solar for heating, i collect my own water and have lots of trees and bush on and around my land (which I have no intention of chopping down). I tried the fluro lights ( to save money !), i do not like th elight they put out, or the noise.
Just because I am not convinced it is AGW does not mean i advocate doing nothing. I just worry about big brother taking more control of what we can and cant do.
Well Toby I think it’s a little more than modelling somehow (jeez).
The reason big brother might take control is that piddly efforts at home won’t do much. Anyway we’re essentially on track to do nothing so when we get to to whatever stabilisation is – let nobody whinge. Adapt (or not) and smile.
Again, Luke and Steve can only come up with lame gratuitous advice on the politics of IPCC when the issue is one of the integrity of the models and the sophistry behind their application.
We have major delays in the emission of carbon from land clearing but they are fed into the models in year 1. We have major sequestration of carbon by woodlands that is being left out of the models all together because of some absurd intellectual game that allows the climate cretins to pretend that things that started before 1990 are “natural” and not measured while things that started after 1990 are “anthropogenic” and are measured.
But is there a single person on the planet that seriously believes that there were no anthropogenic emissions prior to 1990? No! So why is the IPCC persisting with this fiction that there was no anthropogenic sequestration prior to 1990?
The example of plantations planted prior to 1990 highlights the sloppy, imprecise muddle that passes for a climate cretin’s cognitive functions. They are unambiguously anthropogenic in nature but are not measured as performing any carbon mitigation function in the climate models.
And it is this failure to distinguish between the targeting function of carbon accounts, in terms of meeting some portion of the 1990 benchmark, and the actual reality of carbon fluxes in the models, that exposes the IPCC to ridicule.
And it is in the treatment of native forest that the IPCC collective wit has failed dismally. They start with the basic assumption that all native forests in place prior to 1990 are climax forests that emit as much carbon as they absorb. Yet, The Resource Assessment Commission found that less than 2% of our forests are undisturbed “old growth”.
And from this false assumption follows the equally absurd notion that the removal of a tree will produce an immediate emission that will not be replaced by new growth in the forest for at least 200 years.
When what actually happens is that, even in an old growth climax forest, the tree that is removed is the one that has already begun to rot from the inside while adding growth on the outside. By cutting that tree I actually delay that decay by 60 to 100 years and also allow the other trees in the forest to replace the harvested carbon in as little as 15 to 30 years.
By cutting the tree I have converted two opposing elements of natural flux into two elements of beneficial carbon management, the postponement of a natural emission and the conversion of plant growth into a form that will take another 60 years to reach harvest size and another 60 years as house frame before it begins to emit carbon.
Climate scientists do not make good accountants. They are unable to grasp the fact that, along with a Profit and Loss Account, there must also be a proper set of Capital Accounts. At present they are quite willing to record a harvested tree as an emission in the Profit and Loss Account but refuse to record changes in the nature of our carbon capital that can have a greater effect on the bottom line.
And when these gonzo accounts are fed into the climate models all we get is an emission that will not even be present yet. The natural emission that has been postponed by 60 years and the new growth that replaces the stored carbon in the house frame is not fed into the model.
So the models get an input of one negative when it should get an input of two positives for a net distortion of three units. And any model that records emissions 60 years before they begin is guaranteed to produce a modelled warming effect because there is more CO2 in the model than there is in reality.
And as for gratuitous advice from such blatantly partisan sources, you’ve got to be kidding?
And get used to hearing about ocean absorption. Because some countries, like Tuvalu, provide a huge service to the world community in the way of carbon sequestration by territorial oceans that is not matched by any sort of payment. Other nations have long ago removed any absorbing natural resources and now rely on those absorbing nations to cover their debt. It is, as Al Gore said, a moral issue.
Ian you’re as dense as Australian hardwood. There’s a big difference between what might be modelled in a climate modelling circumstance and what might be signed up for in an emissions mitigation protocol. Are you really that incredibly stupid.
So gonzo accounts are NOT fed into climate models at all. So you’re talking utter drivel ! A huge Mottsian rant about nothing. The more I read what you’ve written the more I see someone who is less than clueless and simply now raving on. You’re playing around with low tree use numbers ignoring the massive injections of fossil fuel emissions.
The problem of increasing emissions is primarily from combustion of fossil fuels with some land use and agriculture contribution. CO2 is irrefutably going up !
The problem that you’re unable to grapple with is that you need to tackle these issues meaningfully to do anything. That’s what the world community is interested in. If you emit a new ton of CO2 from fossil fuels – it’s your new ton baby ! We know that the biosphere including oceans is sinking CO2 – not all of it ends up in the atmosphere, but despite some sinks it’s still going up. Nobody is going to pay you for your “background” sink advantages. Go to a COP round and see how you go ! See how many votes you get.
If you don’t like it declare war on the other nations.
Luke, thanks for the new perspective on negotiators. As a naive old fool, I would have expected ours to be doing their best for what was true, & then the best outcome, for us.
Having read your post to Motty, I now realise that their first interest will be in getting an agreement, any agreement, & then think of the quality of that agreement, & lastly, its effect on us.
No wonder that Kyoto ended up such a pile of bull dust.
We most definately should have Motty as our lead negotiator, or a frenchman. Someone who will say cr@p, when required, & walk away.
No agreement is much better than the Kyoto type of result.
The models for the climate are just an attempt to say what will happen overall. That is, statistically, how many storms will we have, will it get drier.
For example, the weather patterns are moving South, in response to warming. Those ever reliable cold fronts that used to make Melbourne so wet and green are now dumping their rain in the ocean. The drier climate for the South East is as predicted.
I saw a demonstration of a model of the local climate around Melbourne demonstrated at the Aspendale CSIRO. It did an excellent job of explaining how air circulates in the area, and pollution is trapped in the Dandenongs. Nothing wrong at all with that model. They even used it to demonstrate how an inversion layer works. Once again, it worked magnificently.
The transposition of the problem with sand on a beach and comparing it to the planet is that they want sand in one area, but it escapes due to currents. The heat that is absorbed isn’t going to magically leak away. It’s going to heat the planet. What happens next is modelled, and it wont’ be 100% correct by any means, but it gives us a clue as to what that extra heat will mean.
And so after walking away you find youself discriminated against in a trading bloc. Well done Hasy. The only player that really cares about the Australia clause is Australia.
Hey Luke waht’s the matter have all your super in European carbon credits – great example of a trading block in action from E30 to E1 a tonne. Don’t worry mate I’m sure you’ll continue your personal attacks here.
Abc – why should I even respond to you – you swoop in, make a pigeon deposit and swoop out. No input nor debate. And don’t “mate” me you social climber.
You really do have a retention deficit, don’t you Luke. The models only deal with anthropogenic emissions and leave all the rest as a constant, even when all the rest is not constant.
Land Use Change emissions account for 19% of total emissions and we know with some certainty that these emissions are overstated and predate the actual emissions by many decades. We also know for certain that huge volumes of sequestration have also been excluded.
And to top it all off there is no proper accounting for variations in so-called natural emissions from the biosphere.
And you expect me to take the models seriously?
You expect me to ignore the significance of compounding out to 100 years with a 15% to 20% incorporated error? Of course it will seriously exaggerate the outcomes. Are you some sort of maths neanderthal?
And still you go on with this bollocks about negotiating a deal. If the IPCC doesn’t agree with the concept of true and fair accounting then there is no moral or political basis for any deal.
You are so morally deficient that you are willing to sacrifice just and equitable management based on the facts for the sake of international approval. Good one Gollum, hope you enjoy “the precious”.
And on the topic of territorial oceans, you seem quite comfortable with the fact that as atmospheric CO2 rises, the carbon content of the oceans will also rise, but you want to protect the Europeans from having to pay for their share of the carbon absorbed by other nation’s territorial waters.
You are all over the shop, an expedient twist here, a complete intellectual cop-out there, and nothing but eurogrovelling and departmental ideology in between.
A few simple questions, Luke.
Why should we levy a burdensome tax on carbon emissions that will be absorbed by our territorial waters or existing native forests?
Do we or don’t we have the right, under the UN covenenants, to the use of our natural resources?
And what business does a body with UN standing like the IPCC have in directly abrogating those covenants. Check out Article I.2 in the attached.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/5.html
And, Article 25 which states;
“Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources”.
The IPCC’s accounting standards are ultra vires.
You’re a bit silly aren’t you Ian – unable to see the forest for the trees that need fiddling with – – maybe it was the run-in in the 70s Aquarian revolution.
It all matters not all your bio-forestry trivia from the climate point of view – atmospheric CO2 is going up and up – we know why. We’ve a fair idea what’s being sunk. The oceans will limit as a sink and biosphere feedbacks will emit more as we go on. Will humanity do anything about CO2 emissions – well gee shucks I don’t know. That’s why they have various scenarios don’t they.
If you think you’re going to get a concession for a big ocean well think again.
Just think how silly it would be. The oceanographers suddenly find that CO2 laden water from the USA is spending more time around Australia. OK then – you guys now own it as you’ve claimed your territorial waters so you pay for it – we suddenly inherit a few gigatons overnight. Yea sure. The climate turns sour and all your forests go up in smoke – yea sure.
So when you’ve got a nice biased US-Euro trading block on your agriculture for being recalcitrant, when you’ve woken up that Exxon was having a bet each way all along and is now selling you their carbon neutral technology at a vast premium, when a semi-permanent drought is stuffing your ag production, when you’re enjoying more extra CO2 warming from melting tundra, permafrost, peat bogs, volatilising soil carbon and smoking Amazon rainforests, jaw-dropped at a disease free beef Argentina – well hookey doo Ian don’t come talking to us – piss off and keep walking.
BTW – I’m not up for a carbon tax – the place wouldn’t handle it – it’s almost been the end of the world to change a light bulb – I don’t to want to live in an Australia with ninnies like you running round out of control. We’re gonna have to tech our way out, adapt or perish.
Luke I think you are missing the jist of what Ian is saying. He appears to be saying that we can not use the models to predict the effect of human emmisions, not least because the inputs are incorrect. He seems to put forward a valid case. Now you can equally argue as you do that increased natural emmisons are also not accounted for correctly….for example tundra melting.
More reason not to trust the models.
Does this mean things could be worse than predicted? Of course it does, but it also means they could be nothing like as bad as are being predicted.
I also agree we have to tech are way out of it. I have always said that ….and I am yet to be convinced about AGW…as you know! BUT if we can find alternative viable energy sources that will be bloody brilliant. Does anybody dispute that?
So what about putting in place a 10 c tax on petrol to fund research into alternative energy?
Like you I do not like the idea of a carbon tax, or carbon trading schemes. The only way is to find cost effective energy solutions. That means more research on technology…not climate modelling etc. Also substantial research tax concessions should be given to genuine work.
No Toby – he’s confusing rule books on emissions mitigation protocols which focus on what humans add to the carbon cycle (which duh – surprisingly why we have a problem). Those protocols/limited set of accounts are not supposed to be full wall-to-wall accounting. Ian knows this full well and is just playing politics and spoiler.
Full carbon cycle modelling and climate modelling does not depend solely on those values. It’s a bit more complex than that. Ian wants a credit for having a natural background sink in your national territorial control. The internationl Kyoto carbon negotiators were marginal on the Australia clause anyway – I reckon they would not sign off on it now. The main problem is burning of fossil fuels – you emit a ton of CO2 – it’s your emitted ton. You don’t get a fiddle for how much the ocean absorbs.
Why bother finding alternative energy sources if you don’t believe Toby. 100s of years of coal left – simply go vaccinate Africa and spend money elsewhere. Instead of a 10c tax on petrol how about the government spend what’s going into Iraq on alternative energy?
Please substitute emissions for emmisons in previuos post!
Note, Toby, how Luke will do or say anything to avoid the implications of gonzo data in the climate models. The reason I called him a maths neanderthal is that he either doesn’t know, or chooses to ignore the fact that a long term projection with a 25% over estimate in it’s saddle bags will produce a very significant distortion in 50, let alone 100 years.
Indeed, it will only take 4 or 5 years for the scenario to be out by an entire annual emission volume.
And the clown still cannot get his tiny brain around the fact that any measures that are implemented by the Australian Government will eventually bump into both the Constitution and our legal principles, and the UN covenants to which we are signatories.
He still thinks it is all just a matter for negotiation between bureaucrats at some IPCC workshop. Bollocks.
Even his gonzo example of US emissions being transported into our territorial waters tell only the convenient half of the story. The other half is that our own absorbed carbon will flow into international waters. But that whole argument is just a red herring because the IPCC has hardly proven itself incapable of getting its head around the concept of deemed emissions and sequestration. Although, true to form, they tend to favour deemed emissions while demanding a much higher burden of proof for deemed sequestration. But that is another story.
Ian is as thick as a brick – the atmosphere doesn’t give a rats about constitutions and covenants Ian. Make no changes to CO2 emissions and nothing will change in CO2 growth. period.
Any if you’re going to worry about errors pick a myopic forester like Ian to focus on the wrong side of the ledger. Factor in the ocean reducing as a sink and the biosphere moving to a net emitter.
So how would you like to negotiate an outcome among clever, competing and vested international governmental and business interests. Perhaps Ian on talk back radio followed by a opinion poll. Give me a break.
Practical SOLUTIONS offered by Ian = 0.0
Rhetorical bushy bulldust = 100.2 %
He’s just acting as a spoiler. Takes talent to construct something. Much easier to stay as a know-it-all knocker.
The atmosphere doesn’t have a problem. It is the bollocks said about the atmosphere that is causing the perception of a problem.
And Luke still tries to imply that it is all just fiddling at the margins. But 19% of recorded emissions that are still out in the paddock, and an equal volume of sequestration by regrowth out in the paddock, and millions of tonnes of supposedly “naturally” rotted timber that has been postponed for decades by cutting the tree, and millions more of new growth in forests that supposedly have no growth, make it quite clear that recorded anthropogenic emissons could easily be overstated by 25% or much more.
And this is the kind of shonky prospectus that the climate cretins use to justify rushing us into a poorly targeted, expensive set of prescriptions of minimal utility.
And Luke keeps telling us how the IPCC won’t budge but they most certainly will budge when the scale of their stupidity is more widely known.
That, after all, is the key to it all. Any carbon trading system must be administered under law. And there is no place in law for the abuses of unreasonable men and the official exercise of stupidity, (team Beattie not withstanding).
What I can’t understand, is if CO2 only makes up 0.0383% by volume, how plants can grow. Is there some kind of conspiracy behind it all? There are monster trees out there, how did that happen with only such a small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to provide that much carbon?
Luke of course there is 100’s of years of coal left..if not more. BUT its a dirty fuel, whilst i do not believe co2 is the issue that you do, that does not mean clean renewable/ alternative fuels are not attractive. My sister just got back from china, the pollution is awful. They have not yet reached the wealth point where they can afford to care about the dreadful pollution emitted from coal.
Oil/ petrol/ diesel are also very dirty, I hate going into the city because of the headache it gives me ( and we and most of the west have reduced our pollution dramatically). The chinese govt last year suggested pollution was costing them more than 10% of gdp..if thats what the govt says its probably even more!
Personally id love to see alternative energy sources at a viable price. If they were available most would love to use them surely!
Just because i don t believe in AGW and models does not mean i dont care about the environment. But I do care about people more (i suspect so do you). Just because we operate from a different paradigm does not make one or the other evil as some people seem to believe.
I source my energy from Red energy who claim to get the majority of their power from hydro…clean, and it actually reduced my electricity bills!
I do still think you are missing some of Ian’s points. Sure you can ignore his being upset about not getting carbon credits for pre 1990 growth ( cant blame him though!). But is he not right about the time it takes for wood, woodchips, paper, charcoal etc to break down? If the models do not account for this they are wrong. If the models look to make predictions in the future they will be out by huge amounts. If they do not account for natural emission increases they will be out in the opposite direction/ or negate each other. Who knows…but one thing is clear …..IMHO the models can not be used to make predictions or to base policy decisions on.
I would have been happy to see teh money spent on iraq being spent on africa/ third world. I argued long and hard with people like andrew bolt about it. But now we are there I am unsure if it is right for us to pull out or not.
If the people of iraq have a vote and the majority want us out…then i agree we shoudl probably pull out. Not easy now we are there though is it?
Toby – get a feel for the size of some of these issues. Do you think they’re big or tiddlers in the global growth of CO2 issue. The way Ian is talking is that it’s already been absorbed so atmospheric CO2 can’t have increased! Time for you to do some maths for a change Toby.
Do you think this matters to the SRES scenarios being used Toby? Can you argue for a lower of higher scenario than the current wide range being used and why?
You’ll also notice Ian argues only the conservative side why ignoring mega-sources of tundra and permafrost just sitting there waiting to be volatilised.
You really do have comprehension problems, Luke, when you say, “The way Ian is talking is that it’s already been absorbed so atmospheric CO2 can’t have increased”!
Pinch me but I could have sworn that I was talking about major problems with volumes of carbon being measured as emitted when they are still out in the paddock. And I was talking about at least 25% of the modelled emissions being false inputs that distort the compound projections. And you come back with this red herring?
Admit it Luke, you have known about the joke for quite a while and have been quite comfortable with the knowledge that the public are being seriously misled.
And lets look at this so-called newly volatilised carbon from melted permafrost in the Tundra. The problem with that theory is that most of the melted permafrost simply does what the upper layers have always done. They melt in the 6-8 weeks of Summer and this water lays about on the surface until Autumn when it freezes again.
The notion that it will all start rapid decay and release of carbon is downright moronic because this stuff merely turns into peat bog. And peat bog, especially when under water, is very good at preserving carbon for millenia, even in much warmer climates. Indeed, it is how our hydrocarbons developed in the first place.
So despite all the BS arguments to the contrary there is one simple fact that operates as a reality check on the myth makers. That is;
NO AMOUNT OF CO2 WILL ALTER THE ANGLE OF THE SUN AT THE POLES OR THE LENGTH OF TIME DURING WHICH THE SUN IS AT THE VERY LOW ANGLES THAT CAUSE THE COLD WEATHER.
Luke, we are getting nowhere here are we! what do you mean do the maths? I do not believe in the models. If even 1 factor is out by a little it will give a wrong answer. And we do not know all the factors!! The planet is too complicated for that.
Ian has built a pretty good case for why we should not consider ‘carbon cut today’ as emitted today. Its not emitted today so why do the models treat it like it is? It may only be a relatively small component of total emissions ( has anybody said burning of fossil fuels is not the main cause of co2 release from human activities?), But how can you believe in models that have their inputs wrong / fudged to meet their required result.
Have any of us denied co2 has increased in the atmosphere?
Interesting point about the Tundra/ permafrost Ian. I better do some reading.
Toby – you’re going to have put the brain in gear – I’m talking about size and importance of various factors. e.g the timber under Ian’s house is a small number, the amount of carbon sunk by the world’s oceans is a BIG number. Why don’t you do some research and have a think about what’s involved in the carbon cycle globally ! And how do nation states compare relatively.
Here’s a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
And all of this doesn’t have anything to do with climate models. It’s simply what do we know about the size of the carbon pools, emissions and sequestration. And remember despite all the in’s and out’s atmospheric CO2 is still going up.
So here’s the problem for Australia (assuming you do believe in AGW and want to do something).
The Feds crow that although not having ratified Kyoto we’ve met or will come close to meeting our targets anyway. Big bravado statements. Puff chest out. Now have a think about this – we’ve already been given 108% for big country, aluminium smelters, small population, long transport distances, reliance on coal yadda yadda. We’ve been given the Australia clause so we can count land clearing in our greenhosue numbers.
Ironically the Qld government has now banned land clearing of remnant vegetation (or substantially so for nit pickers). The Feds without spending a zac can claim the lower land clearing in their emissions numbers. You beauty – thanks Qld farmers – suckers. Voila we in Aussie have complied. Pity all the transport and energy uses are up, up, up. Complied in a one-off swiftie.
Next time we don’t have that handy little buffer (well bloody big buffer) and we’ll be exposed for what it is – we’ve done zip, we’ve had special circumstances given to us and we still couldn’t do zip.
Asked to change light bulbs and we all had a big sook about even that. More airconditioners, more electrical appliances, more spending, more travel, more consumption than ever. And we all enjoyed it very much thank you. We don’t want to give any of this up. And the Chinese and Indians want it to. Why not !
So how does the wood under Ian’s house compare to all this or any of his other factors – Toby you need to ask !
And as for peat bogs etc being so wonderfully stable – how quickly we all forget. From Jen’s archive. And before Ian gets out his 1960 atlas we’re talking systems that have been stable for 8,000 to 10,000 years. The word Toby is bio-FEDDBACK ! And only just starting too.
THE world’s largest frozen peat bog is melting. An area stretching for a million square kilometres across the permafrost of western Siberia is turning into a mass of shallow lakes as the ground melts, according to Russian researchers just back from the region.
The sudden melting of a bog the size of France and Germany combined could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.
The news of the dramatic transformation of one of the world’s least visited landscapes comes from Sergei Kirpotin, a botanist at Tomsk State University, Russia, and Judith Marquand at the University of Oxford.
Kirpotin describes an “ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming”. He says that the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt, and this “has all happened in the last three or four years”.
What was until recently a featureless expanse of frozen peat is turning into a watery landscape of lakes, some more than a kilometre across. Kirpotin suspects that some unknown critical threshold has been crossed, triggering the melting.
Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3 �C in the last 40 years. The warming is believed to be a combination of man-made climate change, a cyclical change in atmospheric circulation known as the Arctic oscillation, plus feedbacks caused by melting ice, which exposes bare ground and ocean. These absorb more solar heat than white ice and snow.
Similar warming has also been taking place in Alaska: earlier this summer Jon Pelletier of the University of Arizona in Tucson reported a major expansion of lakes on the North Slope fringing the Arctic Ocean.
The findings from western Siberia follow a report two months ago that thousands of lakes in eastern Siberia have disappeared in the last 30 years, also because of climate change (New Scientist, 11 June, p 16). This apparent contradiction arises because the two events represent opposite end of the same process, known as thermokarsk.
In this process, rising air temperatures first create “frost-heave”, which turns the flat permafrost into a series of hollows and hummocks known as salsas. Then as the permafrost begins to melt, water collects on the surface, forming ponds that are prevented from draining away by the frozen bog beneath. The ponds coalesce into ever larger lakes until, finally, the last permafrost melts and the lakes drain away underground.
�This is an ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming�Siberia’s peat bogs formed around 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Since then they have been generating methane, most of which has been trapped within the permafrost, and sometimes deeper in ice-like structures known as clathrates. Larry Smith of the University of California, Los Angeles, estimates that the west Siberian bog alone contains some 70 billion tonnes of methane, a quarter of all the methane stored on the land surface worldwide.
His colleague Karen Frey says if the bogs dry out as they warm, the methane will oxidise and escape into the air as carbon dioxide. But if the bogs remain wet, as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
In May this year, Katey Walter of the University of Alaska Fairbanks told a meeting in Washington of the Arctic Research Consortium of the US that she had found methane hotspots in eastern Siberia, where the gas was bubbling from thawing permafrost so fast it was preventing the surface from freezing, even in the midst of winter.
An international research partnership known as the Global Carbon Project earlier this year identified melting permafrost as a major source of feedbacks that could accelerate climate change by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. “Several hundred billion tonnes of carbon could be released,” said the project’s chief scientist, Pep Canadell of the CSIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research in Canberra, Australia.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=4865
AND
Science, Vol 303, Issue 5656, 353-356 , 16 January 2004
Siberian Peatlands a Net Carbon Sink and Global Methane Source Since the Early Holocene
L. C. Smith,1,2* G. M. MacDonald,1,3* A. A. Velichko,4 D. W. Beilman,1 O. K. Borisova,4 K. E. Frey,1 K. V. Kremenetski,1,4 Y. Sheng1
Interpolar methane gradient (IPG) data from ice cores suggest the “switching on” of a major Northern Hemisphere methane source in the early Holocene. Extensive data from Russia’s West Siberian Lowland show (i) explosive, widespread peatland establishment between 11.5 and 9 thousand years ago, predating comparable development in North America and synchronous with increased atmospheric methane concentrations and IPGs, (ii) larger carbon stocks than previously thought (70.2 Petagrams, up to 26% of all terrestrial carbon accumulated since the Last Glacial Maximum), and (iii) little evidence for catastrophic oxidation, suggesting the region represents a long-term carbon dioxide sink and global methane source since the early Holocene.
During summer field campaigns in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (14), we collected 87 peat cores from Russia’s West Siberian Lowland (WSL), the world’s largest peatland complex (6) (Fig. 1). These campaigns were directed at previously unstudied peatlands of the WSL, particularly in permafrost (15). Radiocarbon dating of peat material at the base of each core establishes the age of peatland initiation (table S1). These radiocarbon dates, together with a compilation of 139 additional dates gleaned from a variety of published and unpublished sources (16), provide a comprehensive database of peatland initiation for the entire WSL (Fig. 2). Figures 1 and 2 show that WSL peatlands expanded broadly and rapidly in the early Holocene (11.5 to 9 ka), a period previously thought to be unfavorable for northern peatland development (1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18). The rapidity of this expansion directly contradicts a “steady-state” peatland growth model previously theorized for the region (18), and the timing of maximum expansion is coincident with peak values of atmospheric methane concentration as recorded in Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) and Taylor Dome ice cores (Fig. 2).
1 Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095�1524, USA.
2 Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095�1524, USA.
3 Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095�1524, USA.
4 Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 109017, Russia.
Toby
the models are not perfect, but the simple, basic science is, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat in the atmosphere. More CO2, more heat trapped. The process that follows is very complex, but it is, as the scientists call it, a forcing. That is, the climate must get warmer due to it, it’s a jemmy lifting up the temperature. (Not unless some magic factor happens, eg, the rise in temperature releases some previously unknown CO2 eating monsters that can eat more CO2 than was thought possible, but I don’t think it is likely.)
Also, it’s not like a foxes and hares scenario. More CO2, more things that consume CO2, then less CO2. CO2 hangs around for a long time in the atmosphere.
What happens next is very complex, but so far, the positive feedback is happening as expected. As the peat bogs show, not entirely as expected, in fact, worse than expected. You may not realise is, but your lack of faith in models may be correct, it is equally as likely things could be a lot worse than predicted as than not nearly as bad.
Luke, you trashed any remaining credibility by refering to my discussion on the 19% of total emissions that come from from Land Use Change as “the wood under Ian’s house”. When given an opportunity to mislead the readers you just can’t help yourself can you?
Along with all the other wood based fudges in IPCC methodology we are looking at an overstatement of wood based carbon emissions of at least 25% and more likely 35% of total emissions. And you try to dismiss it as “the wood under Ian’s house”.
And your great little fireside parable on permafrost and peat bogs sounds plausible to the gullible but is just more of the same sleaze.
This is because it all hinges on this assumed vast empty layer of porous rock or sediment under the permafrost where all the surface water just slips into when the last permafrost melts and allows the release of the Godzilla of methane.
Just like that, a million hectares of lakes just slips undergound into an empty acquifer that just happens to have been waiting for it for the past 100 millenia.
You are either an extraordinarily thick skinned liar or are just plain barking mad. You have a brain that is fully capable of accepting any vaguely plausible scenario as long as it reinforces your prejudices.
Furthermore DocMartyn at post 49 at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1187 has some interesting references to papers that indicate that recent changes are not all that unique.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L06202, doi:10.1029/2003GL019178, 2004
Large-scale treeline changes recorded in Siberia
Jan Esper & Fritz H. Schweingrube
Abstract
Analysis of a multi-species network of western Siberian ecotone sites revealed pulses of tree invasion into genuine treeless tundra environments in the 1940s and 1950s and after the early 1970s. In addition, increases in radial stem growth synchronous to the late 20th century treeline change are observed. Both treeline changes and growth increases correspond with decadal-scale periods of temperature that are warmer than in any other period since observations started, suggesting – even if indirect – the sensitivity of large-scale treeline changes to this climatic forcing. The mid 20th century recruitment period reported here for the western Siberian network is compared with local findings from Europe and North America suggesting a circumpolar trend perhaps related to climate warming patterns. For western Siberia, the presence of relict stumps, nevertheless, indicates that this present colonization is reoccupying sites that had tree cover earlier in the last millennium.
Yep 19% and how much of what you’re on about is wrong in the 19%. Come on do the maths and show us your various objections make a scintilla of global difference. Jeez you’re thick Ian. It may be important to you and a handful of Aussie foresters but globally.
Ian it might seem a long way down to the shop but the planet is much bigger than that !
Porous rock – what the hell are you on about? If the lakes don’t drain away it will bubble up as methane – much worse. Or if dries out as CO2. Are you unable to read.
On Siberian trees – yes read the bloody paper I listed – the authors are acknowledging Artic Oscillations – but here we’re getting into material that’s 10,000 years old. Are you so lame that you can’t holding multiple forcings/effects in your head at once. i.e. it’s just one thing of the other.
Really unimpressed Ian – you’re getting rattier and more eccentric every post.
And it’s not a “vaguely plausible scenario” – researchers are genuinely worried about having misinterpreted bio-feedbacks – specifically melting peat bogs, permafrost and tundra, warming soils – soil carbon, drying rainforests.
The ledger balance could be out considerably here. Some suggest a whole extra 300ppm out.
And add in the negative albedo and hydrology effects of planting trees in temperate regions.
And of course there’s a postive side in sequestering CO2 – but what’s the balance? Might this be an issue. hmmmmm. Gee you might have to think about it hey?
And this theory also seems to be based on some really dubious assumptions about depth of permafrost. Check what Wikipedia has to say here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost
And in particular;
“Overlying permafrost is a thin layer of ground called the active layer that seasonally thaws during the summer. Plant life can be supported only within the active layer because growth can occur only in soil that is fully thawed for some part of the year. Thickness of the active layer varies by year and location but is typically 0.6 – 4 m (2 to 12 feet) thick. In areas of continuous permafrost and harsh winters the depth of the permafrost can be very great: 440m (1330 feet) at Barrow, Alaska, 600m (1970 feet) at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, up to 726m (2382 feet) in the Canadian Arctic islands and as much as 1493m (4510 feet) in the northern Lena and Yana River basins in Siberia”.
So in the actual area where this methane Godzilla is supposed to emerge, the permafrost is more than 1000m thick. It is a relic of past glaciation and will take a very long time to melt and allow all that lake water to slip away.
The simple truth of the story is that the surface active zone that melts and refreezes each year is in one of its slightly wider phases.
The Climate Cretins have merely noted an expansion in the area of surface melt and a slight increase in the depth of the active zone and extrapolated to outrageous, indeed, ludicrous, extremes. How very, very, unusual.
And as mentioned above, no amount of CO2 is going to change the angle of the sun at the poles or the length of the period when those angles are minimal.
Another porky, Luke. You know perfectly well that the problems with IPCC wood carbon accounting are not limited to Australia. Most clearing in the Amazon is for pasture, not cropping, and no-one bothers burning windrows if it can be avoided.
And once again we get the upper limit of methane from all melted permafrost but no meaningful reporting on the actual increase in depth of the active zone and no indication of the actual range of methane released for each incremental volume of melted permafrost.
The reason for this is that the actual peat bog part with the methane is unlikely to be all that deep. Most of the permafrost is actually frozen bedrock or frozen deposits.
Exit Godzilla, exit gang of spivs, muttering.
We’re talking a peat bog the size of France and Germany.
As far as the wood carbon accounting issues are concerned – how much difference will it make to the SRES scenarios?
Ian
in what way are the models used by global warming researchers not compliant with the requirements that they are open, and their details explained? Do you have any evidence of this?
The other classic bit of misinformation is the implication that melting of permafrost, as with melting of ice sheets, is cumulative and getting deeper and deeper each year.
But the simple facts of the matter are that each winter it all freezes over again and that means that most of the next years melting is the same stuff that has melted previously.
And that also means that most of the melted volume that is capable of emitting either CO2 or methane is the volume that has already been emitting in the past.
And in cases of ice sheet melt, all it will take to maintain the integrity of the sheet will be a set of ice bunds that are capable of capturing each summer melt volume until it freezes again in Autumn.
All the worst case scenarios of the climate cretins involve mankind sitting back doing nothing for the next 400 years. Fat chance.
Ian’s getting more and more desperate – attempt at discussion increasing and getting tighter – abuse decreasing.
Gee Ian I wonder why they call it permafrost. Hmmm let me see. Could it be that .. .. no wait .. .. hmmm
It’s interesting that the line has moved 100kms poleward in the last century. So it’s reducing you climatological ninny and ecological ignoramus.
And crikey there’s probably a warming albedo impact too. Hey hey hey. He ain’t smarter than the average bear, Boo Boo. Give it up Ian. No backup just a withering pathetic defence.
Standard Luke fare. Mostly invective and sneer but always some key point of misrepresentation in there too. This time the porky relates to the 100km movement of continuous permafrost that Luke has implied to be a general movement but which is actually a localised one. According to Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost “In the Yukon, the zone of continuous permafrost has moved 100 kilometres poleward since 1899. However accurate records only go back 30 years”.
This is generally regarded as evidence of the oscillation in polar ice extent, similar to what is taking place in Antarctica. And it follows that much of the recent movement of the continuous permafrost zone in Siberia is nothing more than part of that natural oscillation.
It should also be noted that once a peat bog has undergone partial thawing, it is then available for further sequestration of carbon which is the very same process that created it in the first place.
Yet, the climate cretins would have us believe that the only consequence of warming will be the release of carbon. They ignore the fact that, when left to their own devices, as is clearly the case in the tundra, peat bogs are net absorbers of carbon.
Indeed, even in our local sub-tropical climate, peat bogs are net absorbers of carbon. Those who have driven into Byron Bay from the Pacific Highway will have passed over one on the long flat section into town. Clearly, warm temperatures do not result in their decay or change to a net emitter of Carbon.
It should also be noted that south of the line of continuous permafrost there remains a vast area of discontinuous permafrost. As wWikipedia puts it, “If the mean annual air temperature is only slightly below 0°C (32°F), permafrost will form only in spots that are sheltered — usually with a northerly aspect. This creates what is known as discontinuous permafrost. Usually, permafrost will remain discontinuous in a climate where the mean annual soil surface temperature is between -5 and 0 °C (23 to 32°F)”.
But at this point the Wiki posters get a little vague. They state that temperatures get warmer with depth but this does not apply to locations where the continuous permafrost is deep and the continuous zone has moved north to create discontinuous permafrost on a frozen substrata.
As mentioned above, parts of siberia have permafrost that is more than 1000m deep and the thawing of this deep substrata is likely to mimic, in reverse, the rate of permafrost formation shown in Wikipedia. They suggest that it takes 1 year to freeze to a depth of 4.4 metres but will take 350 years to freeze to a depth of 80 metres and 3,500 years to freeze to a depth of 220 metres.
So if the rate of thawing follows a similar relationship then we have quite a bit of time to spare, even if peat bogs only emitted carbon without absorbing any when thawed.
Very interesting, thankyou Ian.
Ahem – it’s getting to stuff in the bog that’s been frozen 8,000-10,000 years ! Yea sure Ian.
And isn’t it strange that the phenomeon of warming seems to be occurring globally at the same time. Hmmmm.. .. ..
P.S. Yes I read the permafrost Wiki article last night too. Fancy Ian now quoting that as a source. Maybe it was written by cretins like all other science according to Ian’s bible? If you’re up for a read then try reading the peat bog story too.
“Indeed, even in our local sub-tropical climate, peat bogs are net absorbers of carbon. ” – INDEED hey – and EVEN hey. Well sitting with all that surface vegetation, warm, moist conditions – why wouldn’t you be biologically active. Interesting but irrelevant. About as boutique as you can get.
This was 2004 before the peat bog story, it is complex Toby – so you need to do the maths on sources and sinks, and know how CO2 differs from methane ! all about risk management and feeling lucky – or not !
Science 11 June 2004:
Vol. 304. no. 5677, pp. 1618 – 1620
Defrosting the Carbon Freezer of the North
Erik Stokstad
.. .. ..
Across huge swaths of the Arctic, permafrost is warming to record high temperatures. “It’s really happening almost everywhere,” says Vladimir Romanovsky, a geophysicist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. The pace has shocked researchers–and it’s accelerating. In Manitoba, at the southern edge of Canada’s permafrost, the thaw rate has nearly tripled over 4 decades; this patchy permafrost is now receding up to 31 centimeters per year, and in a forthcoming paper in Climatic Change, Camill predicts that Manitoba will lose most of its permafrost within a century. Even in the far north, where soil deposits are thicker and colder, much permafrost has warmed to the brink of meltdown. That’s a major concern for residents: Settling of the ground has already damaged buildings, pipelines, and other infrastructure in Alaska and Siberia (Science, 30 August 2002, p. 1493).
But widespread permafrost melting could have grave consequences well beyond the far north. No one knows exactly how much carbon is locked up in boreal and alpine permafrost, but estimates range from 350 to 450 gigatons–perhaps a quarter to a third of all soil carbon. The big question is what will happen if even a fraction of this massive carbon store is liberated.
Many parts of the Arctic are already warming faster than any other region on Earth is, a trend that climate models predict will continue. Although researchers are struggling to arrive at a bottom line, they suspect that thawing permafrost will drive global temperatures higher over the next century. No one has a clue, though, how much higher. Thawing permafrost “is a real wild card in the carbon cycle,” says Lawson Brigham of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission in Fairbanks.
Any soil that stays frozen more than 2 years in a row counts as permafrost. The perpetual cold makes these soils an excellent carbon sink, because Arctic plants, such as sedges and mosses, decompose slowly after death. That results in living plants sucking from the atmosphere more carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, than is released from dead matter, building up thick organic soils. For tens of thousands of years, the far north has been accumulating carbon this way. In the upper reaches of Siberia, for example, peat deposits extend for thousands of kilometers and are hundreds of meters thick. Today, permafrost covers roughly a quarter of the land in the Northern Hemisphere.
Researchers first noticed a trend toward a widespread thaw after the U.S. Geological Survey started measuring rising temperatures in abandoned Arctic boreholes in the 1960s. It took another 2 decades to launch a concerted effort to probe how permafrost thawing–and the concomitant changes to overlying soils–might influence the amount of greenhouse gases released into the air.
One team, led by Walter Oechel, an ecologist at San Diego State University in California, started with the assumption that the Arctic was still a carbon sink. In the early 1980s, the researchers conducted experiments at Toolik Lake and Barrow, Alaska, where they measured gases wafting from tussocks and other typical High Arctic vegetation. To their amazement, they found that the Alaskan tundra was releasing more CO2 than it was absorbing. “This was contrary to all that was known about Arctic system functioning,” Oechel says.
The shift was primarily due to changes, brought on by warming, in how water moves through the soils. As Arctic soils warm, water seeps out of thawed permafrost and evaporates, often leaving the soils drier and more oxygenated. Under these conditions, microbes more readily break down dead plant matter, the bulk of organic material in Arctic soil. This decomposition releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
By 2000, however, the amount of CO2 escaping from the tundra had begun to taper off. Permafrost still appeared to be drying out, but woody shrubs and other plants that thrive in drier conditions were becoming more abundant–and absorbing CO2 from the air as they photosynthesized. “It was a total surprise that it was happening so quickly,” says Oechel. That observation has been backed up by aerial photos revealing the northern advance of shrubs over the past 3 decades.
Behind this trend are some complex phenomena. Thicker, colder deposits take longer to warm up. And vegetation can influence how much solar radiation reaches the soil: Trees reflect much less solar energy than do snow-covered sedges, for example. And denser vegetation is a better insulator of permafrost–leading to the counterintuitive situation of rising temperatures spurring plant growth and thus helping to preserve underlying permafrost.
Another key factor in determining the impact of thawing permafrost is topography. Where water can drain away easily, soils tend to release more CO2 and less methane. That’s because plant roots and some microbes exposed to oxygen will produce CO2, whereas methane-making microbes need a wet, oxygen-free environment. “That makes it hard to find a common pattern of CO2 and methane impact across the complex Arctic landscape,” says Oechel. “The hydrology is key, but it’s not well understood.”
In Manitoba, for example, the thawing of frozen wetlands has resulted in wetter soils and greater carbon uptake. Sphagnum mosses thrive in warm, wet bogs, and when they die, much more carbon is stored than in nearby permafrost-rich spruce forests, Camill reported in 2001. “The sheer act of just thawing out the permafrost is enough to double the peat accumulation,” he says, noting a similar pattern across western Canada. That implies a net CO2 uptake. It’s unclear, though, how warming is affecting Siberia’s prodigious peatlands, which have accumulated some 70 gigatons of carbon in the last 11,000 years (Science, 16 January, p. 353).
But CO2 is only part of the story. An ongoing study has documented that much of Sweden’s northern tundra has grown wetter over the past 3 decades, and it is giving off increasing amounts of methane–an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. As the permafrost thaws, the tundra is changing into marshland, with permafrost having disappeared entirely from some of the new bogs. Thawed marshes release methane because standing water leaves them oxygen-deprived, prime conditions for bacteria that convert plant detritus into methane. (As noted above, bacteria that liberate CO2 thrive in aerobic conditions.) “We’re seeing dramatic changes,” says biogeochemist Torben Christensen of Lund University in Sweden. In one well-studied bog, he says, methane emissions appear to have risen by up to two-thirds since the early 1970s.
To chart the changes, Christensen and colleagues compared aerial photos of the Stordalen mire taken in 1970 and 2000. They tabulated four types of vegetation and checked the accuracy of the 2000 photo with a detailed field survey. The extent of drier plant communities, mainly mosses and shrubs, had declined from 9.2 to 5.9 hectares, the team reported in the 20 February issue of Geophysical Research Letters. Meanwhile, the abundance of sedges and other marshy plants increased by more than half. “The thing that surprised me is the rate of change,” says Christensen. “Almost from year to year, we can see the vegetation changing.”
His team calculated that the shift in plants is correlated with a rise of between 22% and 66% in methane production by soil bacteria and plants. Methane measurements from the early 1970s at Stordalen back the increase. “It’s a pretty massive change,” notes William Reeburgh of the University of California, Irvine. Yet this may be a local phenomenon: Average regional temperatures in northern Sweden had hovered near freezing in recent decades, rendering the permafrost vulnerable to even a slight warming. Tundra in colder regions may not be so susceptible, Christensen notes.
All this uncertainty makes it difficult to predict the overall response of Arctic soils to global warming. Even basics are lacking, such as the precise extent of frozen peatlands. “So it’s difficult to calculate the gigatons of carbon they would release if they all thawed,” says Camill. Further complicating the forecast is the fact that few spots in the circumpolar north are studied well or at all–a point emphasized in a report on permafrost released this spring by the U.S. Arctic Research Commission (www.arctic.gov/files/PermafrostForWeb.pdf).
That uncertainty makes any conclusion about carbon flux risky, says Christensen: “I would be hesitant to come up with any major statements saying the Arctic is a source or sink.” Still, he bets that even if the most northern, drier Arctic soils revert to being a carbon sink, methane emissions from thawed permafrost will likely accelerate global warming.
Some experts, however, predict that the methane will be accompanied by CO2, and perhaps many gigatons could be released in the far north over the next century. “The Arctic is likely to be a huge positive feedback on global warming,” Oechel says, citing the fact that warmer, drier soil releases more CO2, warmer, wetter soil releases more methane, and loss of snow and ice cover mean more solar rays warming the ground. Increasing rates of forest fires could also unleash large amounts of carbon. The greening of the Arctic may eventually absorb much of the carbon released from cold storage, he says. But several generations of people will still have to cope with what is shaping up to be a fearful loss of permanence.
This is just standard purple science reportage, Luke. The final statement says it all, “shaping up to be a fearful loss of permanence”. Gosh, now we have to fear a loss of Global Permanence?
Funny how the good news gets lost by the time the wankers deliver the conclusions. We had, “Camill reported in 2001. “The sheer act of just thawing out the permafrost is enough to double the peat accumulation,” he says, noting a similar pattern across western Canada. But move that over to Siberia, where no similar study appears to have been done, and the gloom merchants are on steroids.
This is a classic example of a fools problem. A climate Cretin, when presented with research showing that a newly formed water covered bog produces loads of methane, while a dry bog doubles its carbon absorption, cries out “crisis” and demands the whole world stands still.
An ordinary man or woman, presented with the same data would simply say, “hmmn, best we drain the swamp”. End of problem, bozo.
But there is more grist for my mill in this which will be dealt with later.
Well numb nuts I’m sure you’d had your eddy correlation gear out there measuring what goes on. You don’t know zip. I know you’d go on about the “permanence” quote – yes indeedy doo – a very dynamic situation with lots of feedbacks. Better get a whole packet of envelopes Ian. You haven’t distinguished yourself at all in these arguments and I’m now utterly bored with you. Is that really the best quibbly feeble remarks you can come up with. What a tedious bozo.
Luke, this posted reference reads like “creative writing 101” for planet punks.
But readers not, both Luke and the article are only interested in giving us the maximum volume of carbon, leaving the punters to fill in the blanks. And due to the sensationalist style, of course those blanks will be negative.
Let me stress this again, the clear evidence from right across North American Arctic is that permafrost retreat has doubled CARBON SEQUESTRATION. But of course, under IPCC accounting rules, Canada will not get to claim any credit for it.
It should also be noted that the northern border of Manitoba is at 60N, the same latitude as Oslo, Leningrad and the southern coast of Siberia. There is another 1150km (10 degrees of latitude) to the Arctic ocean, all of it is permafrost.
Yet, “Camill predicts that Manitoba will lose most of its permafrost within a century”. Yes, it will take another century for the permafrost to even reach the 60N line.
So lets get serious here, exactly how much of this fearful 450 gigatonnes of carbon in the permafrost is below 60N? Maybe 5% at most. And 5% of 450Gt is 22.5Gt which when spread over a century is a fearful 0.225Gt/year.
And all it takes is for half of that area to be well drained and the volume of emissions from the wet bog will be cancelled out by the doubling of sequestration by the well drained half.
Take a look at the topo maps for these regions and it soon becomes clear that most of Siberia is still reasonably well drained, the same as the Yukon.
But I guess Luke will be busy on another post by now. The moving Climate Spiv, spivs, and having spived, moves on.
Well you had a chance for a sensible discussion so given the devastating intellectual response I’ve changed my mind – so I reckon you’d be right Ian. I’m sure the researchers haven’t a clue. It will all be just fine. We’ll just gloss over all the details. Yes you’re right.
Might go watch the eddy correlation doody on the front lawn for a while. Jeez it’s emitting .. hmmm .. ..
{any readers still with this increasing tedious post featuring two Australopithcines butting heads together might do well to read some of the above details of what happened to methane when peat bog developement accelerated 1000s of years ago, but hey why worry be happy}
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And all we need to prevent peat bog methane is to remove the surface water. “The Drain” has been part of human landscape management for at least 6000 years but I guess Flannery, being a paleontologist, skipped over that one. But I suppose no-one bothered to set up a drain website so Luke can’t google it and the IPCC just doesn’t want to know anyway.
I just can’t wait for “Climate Change – The Musical”.
mmmm – terraforming now are we – Bradfield scheme on steroids for Ian – looking at MY ATLAS, THE TIMES COMPREHENSIVE ATLAS OF THE WORLD ELEVENTH EDITION – by Lord Snot Futherington Smythe III, Order of the Garter – almost got a hernia lifting the bugger. There seems to be lotsa lakes in Canada – so so so many many lakes such little time. Looks really wet over a wider area. Lotsa drains needed. I wonder how much GHG would be made digging all those drains – of course Ian might do it by hand. And what’s this a footnote – says – do not trust any ice map extent mapping before 1974. Woo hoo.
But anyway the episode on the lawn that Ian forced me to for therapy has turned nasty – does anyone know how to calibrate a Krypton Hygrometer.
Anyway Ian harden up !
Funny the way he reverts to idiocy when cornered. It is the blog equivalent of sucking one’s thumb in the foetal position.
Ian’s gonna drain Canada .. .. hehehehehe .. ..
Luke, if you go back and check your own post you will see a reference to the fact that most of the place was well enough drained to allow the landscape to double carbon sequestration.
Back to Mr Thumb now Phlukey.
Yes but a pity the actual measurements not envelopes indicate major fluxes of CO2 and methane in the middle of all this complexity. Hehehehehe – Ian still doesn’t get it. One thought is all that fits in one little brain at a time.
One other thing that Luke and the Climate Cretins can’t get their head around is the fact that while both carbon emission and sequestration will start when temperatures rise above freezing, the actual amounts are miniscule. The damned growing season is only 1 month long so the emitting season is also only 1 month long.
Notice how no-one appears to have provided an estimate of methane/km2/year? That would only spoil the story. And the truth would only set you free.
Well maybe if you read the actual papers you might have found one? Are rabid property rights nutters unable to read?
In this debate, Luke has repeatedly asserted that Ian is stupid. I don’t know either of the participants. I’ve read every comment above, and am satisfied that the discussion above proves Luke’s assertion is false, and that he should know it to be false.
I haven’t yet followed up all the references given, but certainly the book Jennifer tells us about in this blog entry supports Ian’s position.