From DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Computer sims: In climatic tug of war, carbon released from thawing permafrost wins handily
There’s a carbon showdown brewing in the Arctic as Earth’s climate changes. On one side, thawing permafrost could release enormous amounts of long-frozen carbon into the atmosphere. On the opposing side, as high-latitude regions warm, plants will grow more quickly, which means they’ll take in more carbon from the atmosphere.
Whichever side wins will have a big impact on the carbon cycle and the planet’s climate. If the balance tips in favor of permafrost-released carbon, climate change could accelerate. If the balance tips in favor of carbon-consuming plants, climate change could slow down.
Turns out the result will be lopsided. There will be a lot more carbon released from thawing permafrost than the amount taken in by more Arctic vegetation, according to new computer simulations conducted by scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).
The findings are from an Earth system model that is the first to represent permafrost processes as well as the dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in the soil. Simulations using the model showed that by the year 2300, if climate change continues unchecked, the net loss of carbon to the atmosphere from Arctic permafrost would range from between 21 petagrams and 164 petagrams. That’s equivalent to between two years and 16 years of human-induced CO2 emissions.
The scientists included nitrogen dynamics in the model because, as permafrost thaws, nitrogen trapped in deeper soil layers (below one meter underground) will decompose and become available to fertilize plants. At the same time, organic carbon frozen in deeper soil layers will decompose and enter the atmosphere.
“The big question has been: Which side wins? And we found the rate of permafrost thaw and its effect on the decomposition of deep carbon will have a much bigger impact on the carbon cycle than the availability of deep nitrogen and its ability to spark plant growth,” says Charles Koven of Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division.
Koven conducted the research with fellow Berkeley Lab scientist William Riley and David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They recently reported their research in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientists believe that nitrogen’s relatively small impact on the carbon cycle is due to the fact that deeper layers of permafrost won’t thaw until the fall or even early winter, when summer’s warmth finally reaches more than one meter below ground. At that stage in the growing season, the deep nitrogen that decomposes and becomes available will have few plants to fertilize.
The model’s output also highlights uncertainties in the science. After all, the simulations found that between 21 petagrams and 164 petagrams of carbon will be released to the atmosphere, which is a big range. The scientists say that more field and lab research is needed to determine how carbon-decomposition dynamics work in deep layers of permafrost versus at the surface, including the role of microbes, minerals, and plant roots.
“These simulations allow us to identify processes that seem to have a lot of leverage on climate change, and which we need to explore further,” says Koven.
###
The terrestrial ecosystem portion of the Earth system model simulations were conducted at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a DOE Office of Science User Facility located at Berkeley Lab.
The research was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
There’s a carbon showdown brewing in the Arctic as Earth’s climate changes. On one side, thawing permafrost could release enormous amounts of long-frozen carbon into the atmosphere. On the opposing side, as high-latitude regions warm, plants will grow more quickly, which means they’ll take in more carbon from the atmosphere.
Whichever side wins will have a big impact on the carbon cycle and the planet’s climate. If the balance tips in favor of permafrost-released carbon, climate change could accelerate. If the balance tips in favor of carbon-consuming plants, climate change could slow down.
Turns out the result will be lopsided. There will be a lot more carbon released from thawing permafrost than the amount taken in by more Arctic vegetation, according to new computer simulations conducted by scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).
The findings are from an Earth system model that is the first to represent permafrost processes as well as the dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in the soil. Simulations using the model showed that by the year 2300, if climate change continues unchecked, the net loss of carbon to the atmosphere from Arctic permafrost would range from between 21 petagrams and 164 petagrams. That’s equivalent to between two years and 16 years of human-induced CO2 emissions.
The scientists included nitrogen dynamics in the model because, as permafrost thaws, nitrogen trapped in deeper soil layers (below one meter underground) will decompose and become available to fertilize plants. At the same time, organic carbon frozen in deeper soil layers will decompose and enter the atmosphere.
“The big question has been: Which side wins? And we found the rate of permafrost thaw and its effect on the decomposition of deep carbon will have a much bigger impact on the carbon cycle than the availability of deep nitrogen and its ability to spark plant growth,” says Charles Koven of Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division.
Koven conducted the research with fellow Berkeley Lab scientist William Riley and David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They recently reported their research in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientists believe that nitrogen’s relatively small impact on the carbon cycle is due to the fact that deeper layers of permafrost won’t thaw until the fall or even early winter, when summer’s warmth finally reaches more than one meter below ground. At that stage in the growing season, the deep nitrogen that decomposes and becomes available will have few plants to fertilize.
The model’s output also highlights uncertainties in the science. After all, the simulations found that between 21 petagrams and 164 petagrams of carbon will be released to the atmosphere, which is a big range. The scientists say that more field and lab research is needed to determine how carbon-decomposition dynamics work in deep layers of permafrost versus at the surface, including the role of microbes, minerals, and plant roots.
“These simulations allow us to identify processes that seem to have a lot of leverage on climate change, and which we need to explore further,” says Koven.
###
The terrestrial ecosystem portion of the Earth system model simulations were conducted at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a DOE Office of Science User Facility located at Berkeley Lab.
The research was supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
if ….
Year 2300. Humans will continue as they are. No energy efficiency. No new inventions. Nuclear fusion is certainly still 30 years away. This is the power of the crystal ball of climastrology.
Furthermore, those imaginary humans live in an imaginary 2300, one in which the models that have always failed not only kick in but catch up to their direst predictions.
Lara Croft, X-Box360 fantasy World, don’t you just love all that scientifistocated stuff?
Another worthless model programmed by clueless computer gamers (a.k.a. Climatologists). It might as well be showing the extent of unicorn dung in the year 2300.
But the graphics are kinda cool, so it must be true.
Based on the last 18 years of temperature change we will have 0 times 0. Is there a number for that?
Based on my grade school daughter, the number is somewhere between -1 and 1. Without a super computer though, we can’t narrow it any further.
Back when CAGW was first becoming a real scare the claims were that we would see catastrophic events by 2010, 2020 or 2030 now of course since we are all still here the new catastrophe won’t happen until 2300. Funny how that happens but at least we can all rest assure in the knowledge that none of these “scientist” will end up having to flip hamburgers because the funding for their programs can now stretch out hundreds of years and even if they are proven wrong again they will all have died of old age before their funding is cut.
Thanks a lot. I tried that on my calculator and it exploded. Oh well, it’s still more useful than a climate model.
It wont. Alarmists have a cunning plan to ensure it stays 25c, sunny with light winds for ever!
So.
We do not know.
The End.
Auto – with hat-tip to the shade of Terry Pratchett – much missed author and campaigner.
“if climate change continues unchecked” should be “if climate change continues as predicted by models in worst-case scenario”, of course. I kinda hesitate to believe it’s how things will really be.
Otherwise no real surprise, this process is part of what’s behind the raise of CO2 following each end of ice age.
Altogether now:
Computer simulations perform as they are programmed to.
And it’s turtles all the way down.
Richard Betts, who heads the Climate Impacts area of the UK Met Office, claims his areas of expertise as a climate modeler and was one of the lead authors of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (WG2). Says –
So this study is based on “We Don’t Know.”
On another note – “Simulations using the model showed that by the year 2300, the authors decedents will be billionaires after investing the money made off this Sim-game due to compound interest.”
They’ll have to be ’cause all the other predictions have the planet underwater from melted ice caps long before then so they’ll need a pretty big boat to hold 3 generations at a time and you gotta have somewhere to grow crops. That cost a lot of money. Remember, buy before Antarctica melts.
“The model’s output also highlights uncertainties in the science. After all, the simulations found that between 21 petagrams and 164 petagrams of carbon will be released to the atmosphere, which is a big range. The scientists say that more field and lab research is needed…”
We need more money to hone our model to reduce our near order-of-magnitude uncertainty!!!
Hey, let’s grant them something. At least they gave the range instead of just the average. Even a layman can understand 21-164 is an absurdly large range and thus question the utility of the predictions.
…between 21 petgrams and 164 petagrams of carbon… One question Where did all this carbon come from? How did it get there? Wouldn’t it being there mean it was warmer in the past?
At least we can be sure that, given a decade or two and a few billion $$$, they should be able to narrow that range down just as much as they’ve narrowed down the Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.
Remember, just 20 years ago they thought it was somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5, with 3 as the most likely.
Today they’re not even sure what the most likely point is.
There is a lot of ocean up in the Arctic. Winter is still going to happen every year. Clear water radiates far more energy to space than ice covered water. Do the models account for that?
Clear water also evaporates a lot more, which means there will be more snow in the land regions surrounding the arctic.
So in 100 it hasn’t changed much. But in 20 years we’ll lose 25% of permafrost. They’re basing this on what?
Do they say what value they used for climate sensitivity?
If it’s the IPCC value, then I’m not surprised they get such a result.
I agree with the need for fieldwork.
At the moment the models have uselessly large range of predictions. Perhaps it would help if they were constrained by reality?
A few weeks, maybe, of thawed permafrost will not alter the carbon cycle enough to even be measured with todays technology.
Climate Science has become tea leave reading, crystal ball illuminating, Nostradamus believing, mass hypnosis on steroids. That our government fully funds what are in reality “Clairvoyant” carnival tents each with their own midway barker is incredulous.
Step right up! Come see the bearded lady who is actually the world’s strongest man run the climate model that predicts certain planetary doom! Step right up!
Naomie … is that you!?
here’s the paper:
link: http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=William+Riley&submit=yes&x=0&y=0
pdf: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/03/05/1415123112.full.pdf?sid=04203b16-938c-4b8a-b6e0-3c632c11d321
Carbon, eh? Sounds sooty.
My sentiments, exactly. Can we all agree that referring to CO2 as “carbon” is both inaccurate and spin-driven?
It is clear to me that they left out the big sink in their mass balance model because their model results do not agree with observations. In the Arctic, CO2 concentrations are the highest when the ocean is covered with ice , land is frozen, and biological systems are shut down. The concentrations are lowest when the ocean is covered with the least amount of ice, when the land has thawed, and biological systems both on land and sea are active. That CO2 is coming from the tropics, not from melting permafrost. Emissions from the ENSO regions are several orders of magnitude greater than all the emissions that the Arctic could possibly produce. Any possible increase in Arctic emissions will not be measurable, lost in the variability of ENSO emissions.
If CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it will affect plant growth
worldwide – not just in the Arctic.
I agree. My point is that their model assumes the local concentration of CO2 is primarily a function of the biological activity on land in the Arctic and neglect global sources and sinks in their mass balance. Also, RGB points out that the assumptions in their soil mass balance model are at least questionable if not wrong.
They didn’t say “CO2”, they said “frozen carbon”.
I stopped reading at that point.
Frozen “carbon”? I didn’t realize that was a problem here on Earth, though it does seem to be put to good use in other parts of the Universe… 😉
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Carbonite
I wonder who or what we will find?
Isn’t that what diamonds are?
If nitrogen can decompose (into what I wonder? its subatomic constituent particles?) this changes everything.
Yeah – I was wondering about that too 😉
They must be referring to quac…I mean quarks.
(man that tongue of mine is slippery :>P
computer model says, GIGO is GIGO no matter how many teraflops you throw at it
‘ The scientists say that more field and lab research is needed to determine how carbon-decomposition dynamics work in deep layers of permafrost versus at the surface, ‘
Now there is shock a climate ‘research’ paper that calls for more funded becasue of uncertainty but still makes great claims of the certainty of its central idea .
All GIGO tells us is you can save 15% or more on car insurance
Everybody knows that.
Oh darn!! If only the model had shown that plants overcame the thawing permafrost! But it didn’t so woe is us!
I’m with you buck.
We’re screwed.
Those pesky models.
models always show that bad stuff is gonna happen. wonder why that is?
Whatever happened to the “release of methane from the permafrost” scare? So now we fall back onto the good ole CO2 scare to be released from the permafrost. When will these modellers give up the “C” from “CAGW”?
The permafrost Methane bogeyman disappears in the light of the facts.
1) When there was warming in places like Alaska, atmospheric methane did not increase.
2) Permafrost depletion in the NH stopped since 2005.
3) When permafrost thaws, vegetation grows and removes more CO2 than is released by the melting. The region acts as a sink, not a source of CO2.
4) Past warm periods (Medieval and Holocene warmings) did not produce increases in methane.
So scientists with a model are stirring up alarm about thawing of Siberian permafrost. But there are scientists in Siberia monitoring the situation. What do they say?
“Indeed above at the surface it has gotten warmer, but that’s just part of a normal cycle. The permafrost is rock hard, And that is how it is going to stay. There’s no talk of thawing.” Michali Grigoryev
http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/19/russian-arctic-scientist-permafrost-changes-due-to-natural-factors-its-going-to-be-colder/
“It seems that the permafrost should be melting if the temperature is rising. However, many areas are witnessing the opposite. The average annual temperature is getting higher, but the permafrost remains and has even started to spread. Why? An important factor is the snow cover. Global warming reduces it, therefore making the heat insulator for the permafrost thinner. Then even weak frosts are enough to freeze the ground deeper below the surface.”
Nikolai Osokin is a glaciologist at the Institute of Geography, the Russian Academy of Sciences.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070323/62485608.html
“The Russian Academy of Sciences has found that the annual temperature of soils (with seasonable variations) has been remaining stable despite the increased average annual air temperature caused by climate change. If anything, the depth of seasonal melting has decreased slightly.”
“This is just another scare story . . . This ecological structure is balanced and is not about to harm people with gas discharges.”
Vladimir Melnikov is the director of the world’s only Institute of the Earth’s Cryosphere. The Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute is located in the Siberian city of Tyumen and investigates the ways in which ground water becomes ice and permafrost.
“The boundaries of the Russian permafrost zone remain virtually unchanged. At the same time, the permafrost is several hundred meters deep. For methane, other gases and hydrates to escape to the surface, it would have to melt at tremendous depths, which is impossible.”
Yuri Izrael, director of the Institute of Climatology and Ecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605-print.html
Runaway warming from permafrost thawing has not happened before, is not happening now, but we should believe it will happen if we don’t do something?
Good stuff, but the climate gang wants nothing of it. It would ruin their game and their bank accounts.
What would Russians and Canadians know about polar bears and permafrost?
Another “Given global warming, . . . .” study.
…assume a spherical cow…
CLIMATE MODEL‘s ARE AT BEST A PROBABILISTIC EXPLANATION AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS IF DEFINITIVE… which is exactly what political connections do with science.
Seems like every day there’s a new computer model of a climate catastrophe rising CO2 will cause. They all contradict each other and they all should be thrown in the trash.
The only good thing I can say about them is that they cause the most profound fatigue in even the most gullible member of the general public that the desire to just switch off and ignore the issue is almost overwhelming.
Whilst you academics bluster amongst each other over technical details people with common sense and an ability to cut to the heart of an issue are able to disseminate the bulls**t much more effectively.
Compounding, Linear, Logarithmic or non existent? That is the only question about the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. The first two choices leads to boiling oceans at concentrations less than in our exhaled breath. Anyone who is not deluding themselves or simply an idiot should be able to rule these out. The second two senarios equate to a non threat. A mathematical impossibility for CO2 to cause any harm. They are also the only sane choices and don’t require political or financial intervention.
These people just don’t get it. The ice cores show CO2 at its highest when the global temperature drops as the earth re-glaciates. The NH has been warmer than present or we would not have vegetation frozen in the not-so-permanent ‘perma-frost’.
Exactly!
So we run the numbers like this:
vs
where P(21) is the probability of a 21 Pg release, P(164) is the probability of a 164 Pg release, P(21|W) is the conditional probability of releasing 21 Pg if it warms to W, and P(W) is the probability that it warms to W.
What they’ve done is computed an estimate — and not a very good one — for P(R|W) for a whole range of releases, subject to a bunch of other assumptions (so that this result is much more contingent than they account for numerically as they blithely assume that “the deep nitrogen won’t become available until too late in the growing season”, which to me completely ignores the fact that there is a nitrogen cycle that covers the rest of the planet that doesn’t depend on “deep nitrogen” release at all, and one presumes that the warmer arctic will have more e.g. thunderstorms that produce nitrates and nitrites. Perhaps this is partly responsible for the large range of responses.
One point that they seem to be missing is that the carbon and nitrogen locked up in the permafrost were in biological “equilibrium” at the time they were locked up. Unless they think that the ground froze from the bottom up (which is absurd) the lower layers are in bioequilibrium with a marginally warmer climate, the upper ones in bioequilibrium with a climate “ready” to permanently freeze but not quite there yet, that finally froze. As the system thaws, it is going to do so equally gradually, with the upper layers very slowly being bioactive and starting to grow and the lower layers not participating at all. As the lower layers thaw, however, they will transition to being heated from below more than they are cooled from above, because there is a net outward heat flux everywhere on the planet. The entire lower layer will therefore permanently melt FROM BELOW and thin towards the surface, with the upper surface of that layer oscillating with the seasons and thawing down slowly as well. A meter of earth is a super good insulator.
But in the end, the whole thing hinges on P(W), or P(W’) for even more warming. So the whole thing should be prefaced with “If the models are — whatever they are, since “correct” isn’t even a vague possibility any more, but let’s say — accurate in their mean prediction of a 3 K warming, and if the whole list of assumptions we make are all correct as well, we have predicted that there will be a positive feedback of carbon into the atmospheric system as arctic permafrost melts, if it melts”.
Now what happens if the warming is (say) 1 K, the permafrost doesn’t melt except a tiny bit at the edges, the extra CO_2 emitted is lost and invisible in the anthropogenic bolus already there, and the 1 K already accounts for it and then some? What if the places where the permafrost melts are right next to where the active biosphere already exists and it simply expands, nitrogen cycle and all, into the newly available area almost as fast as it appears (as it is probably going to appear over decades, enough time for a wide range of tundra and trees and scrub to grow)?
Sigh.
Seems to me that they would first want to figure out what effect CO2 has on the climate……
I was going to say – I wonder what assumptions these guys at Livermore were making in preparing this crystal ball computer model forecast. It is always the one thing I have said about computer models generally (as have many others who know about computers): the more variable or free parameters you have in a computer model, the less likely you will have a reliable result, aka garbage in, garbage out. As you have very nicely pointed out, too many things are unknown here to figure out whether the Livermore model is really useful in talking about permafrost in this context.
No I don’t believe in If anymore
If’s an illusion
If’s an illusion
No I don’t believe in If anymore
If is for children
If is for children
Building daydreams
Great Roger Whittaker song.