Comparison with the release of CO2 and methane in earlier periods of warming

-- In ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Henshaw" <ls@...> wrote:

>

> Richard Foy,

>

> I'm not sure if you added a reply. There's a paragraph by Richard Hanson I didn't see before, so I'm not sure what the sequence of contributions is. For content that doesn't matter I think. Richard Hanson's report is that in the Last Interglacial (Eemian) summer temperatures in the arctic were 5-7 degrees C higher than they are now. I did find some confirmation of the Last Interglacial summer temperature anomalies of 4-5 degrees but of only being 1C (not 5-7C) above the present. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/55280/ A difference among paleo climate studies like that is hard for me to evaluate. In , though, using uncertain favorable data to downplay major threats, is exactly the phenomenon I was talking about. It seems typical of the of the reasons we don't study impacts that have yet to occur but are clearly on the horizon, till they have started to happen. That's the reason global warming was't studied, isn't it? That's the reason the environmental limits to growth are still being swept under the rug.

Phil,

You said, "…difference among paleo climate studies like that is hard for me to evaluate. In , though, using uncertain favorable data to downplay major threats, is exactly the phenomenon I was talking about."

I'm not sure to what data you are referring. The temperature data or the permafrost data? I looked up a few more Eemian temperature studies and have included them below. The initial two, Francis and Frechette, I averaged to get the 5-7 degrees. With the additional three the average becomes 3.7 to 5.6 degrees, below the 5-7 and somewhat above your linked study of 4-5. Whatever the "real" amount, it is far and away much greater than today, and if it were to occur again, would be no doubt catastrophic. However, the permafrost studies that I cited indicate that massive methane releases have not occurred in the past 130,000 years as a result of high arctic summer temperatures and resultant melting of the permafrost.

Did you read the cited permafrost studies? If not, I've made it easier for you below. If you believe that the data from these studies "downplay major threats" then I suggest you send an e-mail to the lead authors of those studies and express that to them.

CAPE-Last Interglacial Project Members, (2006), 4-6°C

Frechette et al. (2006) 4 to 5°C

Francis et al. (2006) 5 to 10°C

MacDonald, G.M., et al., (2000) 2.5° to 7.0°C

Katsov et al., (2004) 3 to 6°C

Average 3.7 to 5.6.

Accelerated thawing of subarctic peatland permafrost over the last

50 years

Serge Payette, Ann Delwaide, Marco Caccianiga, and Michel Beauchemin

NSERC Northern Research Chair, Centre d'E´ tudes Nordiques, Universite´ Laval, Que´bec, Que´bec, Canada

Received 26 April 2004; revised 5 August 2004; accepted 19 August 2004; published 25 September 2004.

http://www.chairenordiquecrsng.ulaval.ca/chaire_fr/PDF/PayetteDelwaideCaccianigaBeauchemin2004.pdf

The main climatic driver for

accelerated permafrost thawing was snow precipitation

which increased from 1957 to present while annual and

seasonal temperatures remained relatively stable until about

the mid-1990s when annual temperature rose well above the

mean. Contrary to current expectations, the melting of

permafrost caused by recent climate change does not

transform the peatland to a carbon-source ecosystem as

rapid terrestrialization exacerbates carbon-sink conditions

and tends to balance the local carbon budget.

The disappearance of relict permafrost in boreal north America: Effects on peatland carbon storage and fluxes

Authors: TURETSKY, M. R.1; WIEDER, R. K.2; VITT, D. H.3; EVANS, R. J.4; SCOTT, K. D.2

Source: Global Change Biology, Volume 13, Number 9, September 2007 , pp. 1922-1934(13)

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/gcb/2007/00000013/00000009/art00008

Our results suggest that the loss of surface permafrost in peatlands increases net carbon storage as peat, though in terms of radiative forcing, increased CH4 emissions to the atmosphere will partially or even completely offset this enhanced peatland carbon sink for at least 70 years following permafrost degradation.

Osterkamp, T.E. 2007. Causes of warming and thawing permafrost in Alaska. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 88: 522-523.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007EO480002.shtml

There is a perception that climatic warming was the cause of the twentieth-century global warming and thawing of permafrost and associated terrain instability (thermokarst) [>Gore, 2006; Perkins, 2007; Zielinski, 2007; Delisle, 2007]. While pertinent data are sparse, published results do not support this viewpoint [Zhang et al., 2001; Osterkamp, 2007]. This brief report reviews the warming of permafrost in Alaska during the twentieth century and shows that snow cover has played a significant role in it.

Delisle, G. 2007. Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century? Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2007GL029323.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029323.shtml

A previously presented model on nearly complete near-surface permafrost degradation in the Arctic during the 21st century is critically reviewed. An alternative model with a more complete mathematical formulation of the physical processes acting in permafrost terrain is presented, which suggests that permafrost will mostly prevail in this century in areas north of 70°N. Furthermore, permafrost will survive at depth in most areas between 60° to 70°N. Based on paleoclimatic data and in consequence of this study, it is suggested that scenarios calling for massive release of methane in the near future from degrading permafrost are questionable.

Froese, D.G., Westgate, J.A., Reyes, A.V., Enkin, R.J. and Preece, S.J. 2008. Ancient permafrost and a future, warmer Arctic. Science 321: 1648.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5896/1648?siteid=sci&ijkey=94Qp9uPSljDaA&keytype=ref

Climate models predict extensive and severe degradation of permafrost in response to global warming, with a potential for release of large volumes of stored carbon. However, the accuracy of these models is difficult to evaluate because little is known of the history of permafrost and its response to past warm intervals of climate. We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation.

Regards,

Richard Hanson

>

>

>

> Here's another one, our assumed potential , but relatively unstudied, ability to rapidly change energy systems. I think our economic/technological system has demonstrated itself to be remarkably unadaptive relative to the claims for its ability to change. We've been assuming that the sluggishness of change has been the result of lack of political pressure to change. Now there's a growing crescendo of realizations that it must, and nothing's happening.

>

>

>

> I really don't think the reason why the economies have not already begun to convert to non carbon technology is the absence of a need to do that. I think if it was possible the leaders would be doing it to stay in the lead, as it's been clearly necessary as seen by thinking people for quite some time. I think it's not being done because it's impractical to run an economy like ours on any more costly fuel than the one we designed our whole system around. There is major inertia in a whole system design sometimes, unless there's a significant *lower* EROI window to slip through, and there isn't. That's a problem that has had remarkably little funding, is the point here as well. There's a nice new study of the sustainable level of EROI necessary for economies of ours to operate, but it is long overdue considering the much lower EROI's everyone assumes we can grow forever with. The study, for all its merits, was also clearly underfunded, which I can only gather is because the funding sources are still waiting around for it to become a problem.

> C.Hall - What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have? http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/1/25

>

>

>

> Phil Henshaw

>

> NY NY www.synapse9.com

>

>

>

> From: ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of richardhfoy@...

> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:14 PM

> To: ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: Re: [CCG] Re: The methane question, revisited.

>

>

>

> In a message dated 3/14/2009 10:44:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, ls@.... writes:

>

> Richard,

>

> I think the direct and complete answer to your question about why there has been lagging interest in the potential methane eruption, that might trump all possible climate mediation efforts, is that funding looks at the past and not the future.

>

> The technical issue is that we’re culturally inexperienced in doing research on individual events with emergent feedbacks that change the system. Such systems of change don’t actually follow formulas, but exploit opportunities, and change form as they progress. That’s not the kind of natural phenomena science has been interested in. Science found so many things that seemed to follow formulas that all phenomena were presumed to be deterministic. Having concluded that individualistic phenomena did not actually exist, we never studied them. We only looked for things that seemed to follow rules, thinking that would be enough.

>

> Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·..¸¸¸¸

>

> NY NY www.synapse9.com

>

> From: ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Hanson

> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:18 PM

> To: ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com

> Subject: [CCG] Re: The methane question, revisited.

>

> --- In ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ClimateConcern%40yahoogroups.com> , "Ross Mayhew" <rmayhew@> wrote:

> >

> > Seems we still don't know much about the potential for methane releases, perhaps on a massive scale, to tip the scales quickly and decisively on the global warming front...... why is it that more research funding isn't being devoted to this seemingly IMMENSELY important question???? If large-scale methane releases do occur, it could render completely useless all human efforts to slow down or reverse the rapid warming trends which are the cause of worldwide concern - methane is by far the biggest unresolved "Wild Card" in the entire climate change deck.

>

> During the Last Interglacial (Eemian) summer temperatures in the arctic were 5-7 degrees C higher than they are now. Even the Holocene Optimum of 6-8000 years ago, arctic summer temperatures were 3-5 degrees C higher than they are now. Analysis of the ice cores from Vostok in Antarctica and GISP2 from Greenland show little change in methane or CO2 concentrations during these epochs that would deomonstrate a catastrophic release of Methane or CO2 from either methane hydrates or permafrost. There are several studies (Payette 2004, Turetsky 2007, Delisle 2007, Osterkamp 2007, Froese 2008) that show that permafrost is more stable than previously thought and it would seem that the results from the ice cores support this.

>

> Richard Hanson

>