Permafrost feed back loop.

As far as I know I am not related to Kevin Schaefer, the first author of this Tellus paper. Maybe Tony is?

In general I am doing a poor job of following permafrost research. There have been other studies suggesting that increased plant growth will offset CO2 release, though it cannot do so directly for CH4. I have seen studies suggesting that drying of these soils (also anticipated) could act to limit the rate of release of IR-absorbtive gases. However, the permafrost is (I believe) dotted with little lakes so how much effect would no rain have in the short term?

As with too many of these areas, we are severely hampered by lack of process knowledge and especially, sparse sampling over vast areas. Previously here I highlighted the Tarnocai 2009 study which dramatically increased the estimate of permafrost C. This study builds on that.

Last year it was 'in the wind' that the US was going to announce a new major program on permafrost research. Perhaps that got lost amongst other Washington activity? I hope not.

Faced with this among several other lines of evidence, albeit with large uncertainties, I am amazed (and actually not pleased) that so many in power feel they can bet the farm that nothing bad is going to happen. But Icarus knew I would say something like that.

 

Have we ever had "control" on the climate?

 

Control in the sense of changing it, I would say yes now and to a lesser degree in the past with the onset of global forest-cover reduction.

Control in the sense of choosing a desired climate, figuring out how to achieve it, and taking the required steps to do so? I would say no. People may feel the urge to do so in the future. If so we can only hope the skills, invenstment, and collective will are up to the task.

Could be I am not understanding the question. But the point I am trying to make in response that it is easier to change some thing towards an undefined new state than to change it towards a specified new state. I would suggest that flows easily from our understanding of complex systems in general.

 

Spinning climate out of control is what we're doing.

 

No, you did fine answering the question. I was hoping for Icarus' take on it though.

So you would say to some degree that we can influence our climate, yes? And this position is a result of temperature archives and modeling, yes? What are some other factors?

 

When the permafrost gets mushy, the Alaska pipeline falls down, no?

 

I guess it depends on how much melting. As it is, the struts have a cooling systems in them to prevent the permafrost from melting around them. Very ingenious. Some type of fluid draws the heat from the ground and rises to the fins (on top of the struts) where it dissipates in the air. Something like that.

 

Pish tosh. Let's just resume above-ground nuclear testing. You sort of forget about that until somebody counts them up -- 422 detonations so far, if I read the blurb right.

ScienceDirect - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics : The role of atmospheric nuclear explosions on the stagnation of global warming in the mid 20th century

The only cheerful thing I've read on the arctic is that, at least in the opinion of the experts who post on Realclimate, large abrupt releases of methane from the clathrate deposits there appears unlikely. Their argument is that you just can't transport heat to those deposits fast enough to make them do anything more than boil off slowly (as they are doing now in parts of the Arctic ocean.) Guess that's some comfort.

But basically, I look at the current US political climate, I look at the probable size of that feedback, and my conclusion is that it's essentially game over at this point. This generation will be comfortable, and we'll just hand our C02 accumulation on to the next. And so on. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Until somewhere done the road, somebody gets desperate enough to do some serious geoengineering (which is, I think, the term of art you are looking for, for consciously trying to control the climate). Nuclear is just one of the schemes in play.

I guess the real litmus test for US stupidity will be coming up later this year: Will they repeal the 2012 incandescent bulb ban that has been on the books since 2005? My guess? Yeah, I bet they will. And you know what -- in the long run, we get exactly the government we deserve. If we are collectively too stupid to do something about this while we have the chance, then our grandchildren can pay for it. Pigouvian tax, anyone?

So there's my prediction: The sole US action on global warming, this year, will be to repeal the 2012 energy standards for light bulbs. One small backward step for man.

 

Re: Spiderman, previous and current human influences on climate have involved land-use changes, their consequences, and rapidly increasing return of fossil fuel carbon to the atmosphere as CO2.

The former changes the balance between plant uptake of C and respiration (including decomposition of plant-derived organic matter). It also changes evapotranspiration (water balance) and energy balance via the latent heat of evaporation of water. It also changes dust input to the atmosphere.

The latter, besides adding CO2 to the atmosphere, adds sulfate aerosol (with roles as cloud condensation nuclei among others) and we could probably make that list longer.

Effects of human usurpation of the global nitrogen and phosphorus cycles probably have several effects, but increase in nitrous oxide from N fertilizers is the most apparent.

Wetland draining has reduced methane emissions to the atmosphere, while flooded rice cultivation has increased it. The global 'fleet' of enteric fermentors (cows) has likewise increased methane, but there are a lot fewer bison now than in days gone by (ref: Dances with Wolves). Whether these are a wash or not, I am not the one to say. But global methane is increasing overall.

Lest we forget, oil and coal extraction both return methane to the atmosphere unless active steps are taken to prevent it. Sometimes steps are taken, other times not. I understand that we have a very poor handle on the number and extend of underground coal fires.

The record is temperature as measured (surface level and satellite) and as derived from various other proxies. Atmospheric chemistry. Glacial dynamics. Plant growth, mortality and distributional changes. Whether the animal evidence is conclusive or not may be in the eyes of the beholder.

But seriously, if you (or anyone) wants to learn the breadth of earth system science ans anthropogenic effects thereupon, it is a much better plan to enroll or audit a course at a local college. Don't be waiting on me to teach it here at Priuschat.

Once the course gets your minds all limbered up, you can read some published papers and decide for yourselves whether it's science or one of those vast conspiracy thingees. They report; you decide (if that is a trademark, maybe I ought not say it)

Future anthropogenic influences: more of the same, unless large-scale decisions are made to do otherwise.

Spidey, if you are in Fairbanks, I know of some top-notch earth system scientists at UAF you could commune with.

 

Thanks for the input. I am not in Fairbanks now but I was. I was planning on majoring in Meteorology and Dr. Akasofu was my advisor for a brief time. At the time, they didn't have an undergraduate program so I just took generals with the intent to transfer. Things changed though and I went down another path.

 

Dr. Akasofu is a top gun in auroral research, and not without a point of view on climates past and future Check that out at his web page:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu

 

That is interesting too as when I talked with him (mid-80s) he seemed really reserved and soft-spoken.

Just curious, where did you study?

 

Now he's retired and the building is named after him.

I studied chemistry for BS at Cal Tech, Biology for MS at New Mexico state university, and not too dissimilar for PhD at Dartmouth. Since then, have been at various places. Now in China, trying to get the Chinese equivalent of NSF to fund quite a distinctive wood-decomposition experiment.

Nothing more boirng than watching wood decompose eh? Yeah, that's what they'd like you to believe

 

^ quite a list of achievements! Well I like wood.

 

well since this thread died.. time to bring it back