I'm melting

Breaking news: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 10:52 PM on 12 Jun 2008

A major new study published Friday in Geophysical Research Letters by leading tundra experts has found "Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss." The lead author is David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who I interviewed for my book and recently interviewed again via email about his recent work. The study's ominous conclusion:

We find that simulated western Arctic land warming trends during rapid sea ice loss are 3.5 times greater than secular 21st century climate-change trends. The accelerated warming signal penetrates up to 1500 km inland ...

In other words, if it continues, the recent trend in sea ice loss may triple Arctic warming, causing large emissions in carbon dioxide and methane from the tundra this century. What is especially worrisome is that 2007 provides strong evidence on behalf of this theory:

NOAA reported that methane levels rose in 2007 for the first time since 1998 (see here).
The tundra can emit vast amounts of methane when it defrosts (see Part 1).
Scientific analysis suggests the rise in 2007 methane levels came from Arctic wetlands (see here).
And 2007 saw record Arctic ice loss (see "Ice, ice, maybe (not)").

So I would certainly pay attention to what these scientists have to say. How much warmer did the Arctic get last summer, and how much warmer might it get with further ice loss?

From August to October last year, air temperatures over land in the western Arctic were also unusually warm, reaching more than 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1978-2006 average ...

The decade during which a rapid sea-ice loss event occurs could see autumn temperatures warm by as much as 5 degrees C (9 degrees F) along the Arctic coasts of Russia, Alaska, and Canada.

Needless to say, such warming would have a huge impact on the permafrost:

"An important unresolved question is how the delicate balance of life in the Arctic will respond to such a rapid warming," Lawrence says. "Will we see, for example, accelerated coastal erosion, or increased methane emissions, or faster shrub encroachment into tundra regions if sea ice continues to retreat rapidly?"

Faster shrub encroachment would, of course, also accelerate warming.

And all that warming would cause massive melting of the tundra and faster emissions release. That must be avoided at all cost, since the tundra feedback, coupled with the climate-carbon-cycle feedbacks that the IPCC models, could easily take us to the unmitigated catastrophe of 1000 ppm (see Tundra, Part 2: The point of no return).

In the interest of completeness, there has been the typical academic back-and-forth on the details of Lawrence's 2005 study ($ub. req'd) on tundra loss this century. It now looks like that initial study slightly overestimated the rate at which permafrost would be lost. Lawrence revised and updated his analysis in this recent study ($ub. req'd), "Sensitivity of a model projection of near-surface permafrost degradation to soil column depth and representation of soil organic matter" , which still finds: "Even at the depressed rate, however, the warming is enough to drive near-surface permafrost extent sharply down by 2100."

I asked Lawrence if it was still reasonable to keep using this figure in my presentation, since it is so much easier to understand than the figures in his new paper.

He said, "Using the old figure is still fine as long as one mentions the caveats that permafrost is probably degrading a bit too rapidly in the original." So I will certainly use that caveat, though, of course, I will also caveat the caveat by saying the slightly slower rate of permafrost degradation does not include Lawrence's new analysis on the accelerated warming of the permafrost due to sea ice loss (or, for that matter, the accelerated warming of the permafrost due to faster shrub encroachment).

Needless to say, the time to act is yesterday!

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: I'm melting
10 Comments | Post a Comment

Make sure you don't drink too much!

Drunken Forest
http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/drunken-forest/

by LGT at 12:09 AM on 13 Jun 2008

Greenland Ice?

I guess Artic sea ice loss also accelerates Greenland ice loss, thus sea level rise.

by 314159265 at 2:59 AM on 13 Jun 2008

So how do we get politicians to take this serious?

If they don't, we're screwed, aren't we?

Here's an idea. What if environmentalists went and, en masse, joined existing parties, ideally parties in power? If enough of us did that, we might be able to influence the political agenda - arguably to a greater degree than as individual citizens. (Though maybe that's a plan that makes more sense where I live - Germany - than in America, I don't know.)

by Hmpf at 5:06 AM on 13 Jun 2008

Politicians

Hmpf

You're serious, I take it. Right?

Politicians aren't appointed to the job for their ability to make decisions; they are there to rubber stamp the cabal's agenda!

by LGT at 6:13 AM on 13 Jun 2008

"With Speed and Violence"

Fred Pearce's book: With Speed and Violence -- it's all about these tipping points that push us into our appointed collision with our destiny. Oh, the costs have having become much more clever than wise.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 6:26 AM on 13 Jun 2008

Right. Right. Right.

Its Freds book, no doubt.

BUT ITS HANSENS PRESENCE

The costs of having become wise

Saddening, isnt it?

by billgee at 6:41 AM on 13 Jun 2008
[ Parent ]

Perhaps politicians and economists need.........

..........to embrace science.

letter to the editor
Chapel Hill (NC) Newspaper
June 11, 2008

Solutions exist if we apply the science.

Humankind is surely experiencing the fulfillment of a Chinese proverb: "We live in interesting times." Many of our brilliant scientists report that God is a delusion. On the other hand, intuitive and gifted believers regularly tell us that these scientists themselves suffer from a form of delusional atheism. No one knows, I suppose, which of these groups is correct.

I am one of those people who believes the family of humanity can use God's gift of science to take the measure of any global challenge and find solutions that are consonant with universal values. But, before we can move forward to reasonably address and sensibly overcome a challenge to human wellbeing and environmental health such as global warming, that challenge needs to be openly acknowledged and widely discussed. I suppose it is a function of my life experience to suggest that we accurately "diagnose" whatever the challenge is before proceeding to implement "treatment" options.

If great spiritual and scientific leaders are somehow on the right track when realizing, "The Earth has a human-induced fever and could overheat," then at least one available treatment option is to carefully and skillfully examine the extant scientific evidence related to global warming and to make necessary changes in human behavior, both individually and collectively.

All of the above serves to set the stage for our consideration of a question. How can politicians and economic powerbrokers in the human community be empowered to muster the "political will" necessary for addressing human-driven climate change as well as for providing the substantial economic incentives and financial capital necessary to overcome this potential global threat to life as we know it and the integrity of Earth?

-- Steven Earl Salmony, Chapel Hill

by stevenearlsalmony at 6:59 AM on 13 Jun 2008

Greenland

Would substantial loss of permafrost threaten the Greenland ice sheet in any way, aside from releasing heaps of methane?

a sibilant intake of breath

by sindark at 2:12 PM on 13 Jun 2008

Green Guide for Maui green info

Hello again bloggers,

This is a tragidy we need to stop buring oil to get around this is only the beginning of a huge mess and feel that if we were more informed we would have other alternatives, such as EV conversions to get rid of gas burning for transportation all together. check out some EV articles and other green guide topics at our site today.

This week we have been busy publishing new articles and attracting new users to our green forum and ask that you stop by our site http://www.greenmauiguide.com for more info and to see what green on the scene this week thanks to all and look forward to seeing you there. We are non-profit org ran by university students so check us out its free.

Green Maui guide.

Green Guide Maui's green source for evironmental practice and information related to saving the earth.

by Green Guide for Maui at 2:37 PM on 13 Jun 2008

ITAC? (Is There a Cabal?)

I don't know if I believe in a cabal, exactly. I do believe there are strong forces lobbying for destructive policies, on the higher levels of the political system.

However, it also seems to me that, short of a genuine revolution - and I think we can't build the necessary groundswell for that kind of thing in the time remaining for the needed changes - the only option we have is to get 'the system' to change course as much as possible while still keeping the system itself. (Believe me, I'd rather lose the system, but, as I said, I don't believe that's doable in the available time.) We can either do this by achieving a massive change of consciousness among the general population, or by achieving the same/a similar kind of change among a smaller group with more direct influence. (Ideally both, of course.)

Campaigns like the 350 campaign try to do the former - and I think it's a great campaign, make no mistake! But it's hard to reach the entire population, especially since the media, by and large, are not on our side. Also, even if we managed to miraculously create this massive change in consciousness, it would then still have to be taken up by the 'people in power'.

So, I don't think we should put all our eggs in the 'independent campaigns' basket - we need to make use of all available channels of influencing public consciousness/opinion. Working within parties to spread awareness there seems to me to be one of those channels, and a potentially powerful one:

Fifty 'private individuals' who are concerned about an issue are just fifty private individuals, or, at best, a grassroots group. They may get some attention on a local level occasionally.

The same fifty individuals within a party, however, could form a potentially more powerful group that might even get national attention. They could also help to change the party, from the ground level up. The inevitable party inertia notwithstanding, it may be easier to change the thinking of a relatively small group of people, such as a party, than it is to change the thinking of the entire population. And, higher-up politicians are still dependent to some degree on the approval of their parties; they need to get nominated and elected for posts etc. Creating a more 'eco-friendly' political climate on the ground level might help to influence the 'higher-ups'. It would also, probably, confer a higher degree of visibility to environmental concerns in general.

Of course, all of this only applies if more than a couple of people are willing to try this approach. A certain 'critical mass' is needed for any change...

by Hmpf at 3:05 PM on 13 Jun 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.