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.
Oops, Mod, please help with the unclosed boldface tag. Teach me to hit post before finishing my coffee…
rgb
[Done. Right spot? .mod]
Sure.
Then why are we here?
If any of the ‘tipping point’ scenarios were real, then they would have occurred already. It was certainly warm enough, long enough, during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum that if these runaway warming patterns would have already happened.
They didn’t, so either the tipping points don’t exist, or there is an opposing negative feedback, otherwise we would not be here.
Don, if any of the tipping points existed…we would no longer have winter
The other possibility is that the tipping points did occur and wiped us all out….placing us now in
HeavenHell with the “Progressives”.First, this paper should never have been written.
Second, it should have been rejected by the editor.
Third, It should never have passed peer review.
And finally, it should never have been published.
Why?
“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”
Climate simulations are real research. Which part of this is so hard to understand? /sarc
But you missed the reason for the publication in the first place: “The scientists say that more field and lab research is needed to determine how carbon-decomposition dynamics work”. Ie. We want money, lots of money, and even more money after that, because climate. Or, if you’re a Simpsons fan: “I’m a climate scientist. Gimme gimme gimme!”
Ignoring the moneygrab, the bit that disturbs me the most is: “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.” It’s the first model to do this? So how do we know it’s accurate? Heck; I could whip up a climate model that runs on a ZX-81 that’s the first to model the interaction between the interaction between the position on the sun, relative to the galactic center, and the mating rituals of earthworms, but it would take years to validate the model.
Unless, of course, that’s what they want to do: validate their model. It would be quite useful to have a model to do that. But who would fund the research needed to validate the model? Oh, I see… tie some sort of climate alarmism into the paper to get funding. /sarc
Damn; two sarc tags. I need more coffee.
The Arctic is already warming, so what is so unreasonable about the authors developing models to try to predict the impact?
It seems unreasonable to integrate from now to 2300.
It’s 0°in Cambridge Bay. “Warming” does not equate with “warm.” “Warming” doesn’t melt anything.
Yes, for the Climate Liars, it’s all a big computer game, with “Carbon” the evil villain.
Nothing so far from NASA on the promised March update on the OCO2 satelite data. Has anyone seen anything elsewhere?
It has the potential to really set the cat among the pigeons if it is anything like the last release that showed CO2 in the most unlikely places and very little where the alarmists would like to see it.
They’re busy collecting the singed chicken feathers they had marinated in albino goat’s blood that had to be buried on a Tuesday when the moon is waning gibbous. Then they’ll have the rest of the
voodoodata they need to finish up the “calibration” and measurement routines that will provide data several orders of magnitude finer than the sensors can detect. It appears to be yet another multi stepped process with lots of room for “calibration” and “quality control” to measure something they can’t accurately measure to see of they’re even right. I’m sure the Climateers will now be whining about 50 ppbv changes in CO2 once they start washing the data through the statistical models of lord knows what planet claiming that more measurements give them more accuracy.Funny. I tbought we were the primary climate drivers. So in other words whether we drive our cars or live in loin cloths and mud huts will make no difference. I’ll take cars for 1,000 Alex.
17 ifs and 7 coulds. And if my aunt had b***s she could be my uncle.
“Simulations…” “… model…” “…. if climate change continues unchecked…” I gave up when I saw those key words in that sentence. More GIGO from the planet Zod.
These “scientists” make a mockery of the word. They are without shame, concerned only with the climate gravy train continuing.
This is such a stupid study. How did it ever get past…. Okay, never mind it’s a rigged game. They can and will say whatever they want especially if it is backed by a model. The complicit media blare the news and when the facts are presented those will get back page, small story treatment.
I get it…the first amendment says they can say what they want.
But, I don’t want to pay for their BS research(?).
Yet another example of the wackamole form of climate hype.
Arctic ice is no longer (never was) a problem.
Sea Level Rise is no longer (never was) a problem
Ocean Currents are not going to make a sudden change and destroy the climate (was never [going] to happen)
Tibetan glaciers are not in crisis (never were)
Polar Bears are doing fine (have been [doing] so for a long time)
Greenland melting away? Nope
Etc, etc, etc, etc,
Now the climate hypesters are claiming permafrost is [going] to kill us all.
Notice that nearly all of the alleged examples of hype are in places far away or deep under the ocean and hidden from easy view.
Hunter, that is why I drafted a statement for the US Senate, during their recent debate re. Keystone.
An appropriate legislative motion on climate change should read like this:
Whereas, Extent of global sea ice is at or above historical averages;
Whereas, Populations of polar bears are generally growing;
Whereas, Sea levels have been slowly rising at the same rate since the Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago;
Whereas, Oceans will not become acidic due to buffering from extensive mineral deposits and marine life is well adapted to pH fluctuations that do occur;
Whereas, Extreme weather events have not increased in recent decades and such events are more associated to periods of cooling rather than warming;
Whereas, Cold spells, not heat waves, are the greater threat to human life and prosperity;
Therefore, This chamber agrees that climate is variable and prudent public officials should plan for future periods both colder and warmer than the present. Two principle objectives will be robust infrastructure and cheap, reliable energy.
You forgot carrots are going to lose their taste… new models show.
This reminds me of the NOAA computer simulation that showed the BP oil spill going all around the Atlantic. The word computer simulation should be replaced with computer animation. These things a more akin to Toy Story than to realistic predictions.
All of the Arctic permafrost had melted by 7000 BP …. and did not re-freeze until 3000 BP …. and the proxy records do not confirm any major outgassing of CO2 from the rotting Arctic biomass during those 4,000 years of “global warming” Arctic temperatures, … to wit:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image354.gif
Graph source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
And to wit:
All of the Arctic permafrost had melted by 7000 BP …. and did not re-freeze until 3000 BP …
Xxxxxxxxxcxxxxxxxx
Samuel.
Maybe but I doubt it. I have worked in permafrost and discontinuous permafrost areas. Where the active zone becomes warm enough for good plant growth, it acts as an insulating layer for the ground below. The top two or three metres may remain unfrozen for a larger portion of the year, but you will still get a surprise when you dig a hole. And as trees and willows grow and moss forms, the permafrost recovers to within a few inches of the surface. At least that is what I believe from working north of 55. Could be wrong though. Only ran a few computer models of soil temperature profiles and that was a long time ago.
Wayne, I’m sure then that you have dug yourself a northern refrigerator! That was one of the first tasks when a geological field party arrived at the first camp site with fresh meat and other perishables. Dig a hole put a few spruce fronds in and make a lid with spruce sticks and pile on the spruce bows for insulation. I also made a fine comfortable spruce frond bed with advice from an oldtimer, who, yoikes was a fair amount younger than I am now!
Wayne D,
I knew that, what you stated, …. but, … the CAGW “warminists” are claiming that all the permafrost is “soon” going to melt ….. and I just echoed their claim.
But for sure, not as much will melt during the next 100-300 years …. than what melted during those roughly 3,000 continuous years of surface temperatures that may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.
I spent a lot of time in the North Woods (Adirondacks) hunting and fishing during the late 60’s and the 70’s, both winters and summers. And “yes”, we used a Spruce covered refrigerator “pit” during the summers ….. and covered the plastic “waterline” from the “spring (H2O)” to the cabin with Spruce branches to keep it from freezing in the wintertime, thus we had “running H2O” in the cabin all year long. And yes, it got cold there in wintertime. Like 2’ to 4’ of snow and 16” to 30” of ice on the lake.
One November, my friend “rushed” the season and headed out across the lake on his snowmobile and “kerplunk”, he and it ended up in the water in the middle of the lake. He was lucky he didn’t freeze to death fore he got back to the cabin …. and would have iffen he hadn’t grabbed his snowshoes when he felt the ice break underneath him. We had to wait until January before we dared to get back out there to lift that snowmobile up out of 20’ of H2O and back onto the ice.
Wow, CO_2 fell to ~200 ppm during the YD? That’s a major surprise. IIRC, 180 ppm is the plant extinction threshold, if it happens rapidly enough, where the partial pressure of CO_2 is no longer sufficient to diffuse into many plant species. One “expects” rapid evolution during such a time, but not all species can evolve rapid. We brushed up against this threshold in the Wisconsin, I knew that, but didn’t realize we got so close again in the YD.
rgb
Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution.
The paper includes injections of AGW-rhetoric.
Ted Clayton March 19, 2015 at 11:13 am
Thanks for the link!
rgbatduke March 19, 2015 at 10:37 am
Yes, a close call indeed! And we’re being told that 400ppm or 500ppm is going to cause catastrophe. How do these people look at themselves in the mirror each morning?
This is yet another article that shows the forest for the trees problem with all these papers. Whatever source of carbon is unlocked, permafrost thawing, oceans heating, etc etc the warming affect releases ever more CO2. In other words, every carbon releasing effect accelerates more release of carbon.
Yet in the actual paleo-climate record there are bounds to the rise and fall of temperatures indicating there are negative feedbacks people are unaware of whenever climate changes either direction.
What would be useful climate science is to discover exactly why we have a lower bound during ice ages. You’d think that as more sunlight is reflected to outer space, the earth would cool more and we’d get more ice and soon we’d be all ice. But that doesn’t happen. Likewise, you’d think that as more permafrost melts and oceans warm that we’d get more methane and C02 released and we’d get run away heating. But that doesn’t happen either. Is it more water vapor released as the planet warms reflecting more sunlight back that creates the upper bound?
Clearly the checks and balances built into our chaotic climate system are not understood at all. A paper like this, and sooo many others, just ignore how ignorant and how far far away we are from settled science. Of course, it’s no surprise that the politically funded grant gravy train pays for results that fit the meme of runaway feedbacks. We must have a crisis to use to mold the masses to our whims.
In the meantime, I’ll enjoy watching our recent slight uptick in temps coming out of the Little Ice Age which is yet one of a number of decreasing high points in temps since the end of the last ice age, meaning man has little to do with this and there is nothing we are doing that seems to be slowing down our inevitable slide back to ‘normal’ climate temps which results in no Canada, no ‘most of the British Isles’, etc. And if that isn’t just a crock. We need more man made global warming if we are to avoid slipping back to the full on ice age that is our ‘normal’ climate. But I’m not arrogant as the warmists are about man’s ability to geo-engineer this planet. An ultimate return of the glaciers is our ‘normal’ climate (whatever ‘normal’ means).
Interesting science out there. Studying what doesn’t matter and ignoring what does.
Johm M, that is the neoscience that has been being taught in most of the public schools and colleges for the past 30 years..
Let’s get real. The year 2300 is 285 years away. Carbon based fuels will be replaced by then for pollution reasons if they have already not been depleted. We will need the added carbon for plant growth worldwide. Considering the progress in technology in the past 100 years, I have to believe, that somewhere, somehow, we will develop practical energy sources (not the current green failures) to replace our present fossil fuel energy sources.
It’s worth remembering that this is just one of many natural positive feedbacks which take the full ‘Earth System Sensitivity’ between a Holocene climate and an ice-free state to around 2.4°C/W/m², or 9.5°C per doubling of atmospheric CO₂ (Hansen & Sato 2011)… although that would take many centuries, of course.
Warmist trolls do have the strangest “memories”.
Right. It’s that old Puff the Magic Dragon again:
http://www.catholica.com.au/misc/images2013/AJB-Global-Temp-Atmospheric-CO2-over-Geologic-Time_640x513.gif
As soon as I read “Berkley” I jumped to the comments. That’s very bad of me but that’s how word association works sometimes.
Some basic observations:
Boiling point of methane (at sea level): −161.5 °C (−258.7 °F)
Boiling point of CO2 (at sea level): −56.6 °C (−69.8 °F)
Boiling point of water (at sea level): 0°C (32°F)
That explains why the oceans have mostly boiled away.
by that the extreme drought is explained 🙂
but i think he meant freezing point of water but however nice typo hahahahaha
Last line should read: Melting point of water ice (at sea level): 0 C or 32 F. Water boils at 100 C or 212 F, a property of which I take advantage in my kitchen (hard-boiled takes 4 minutes).
On which planet?
That’s the triple point of CO2 at a partial pressure of 5.1 atm and the melting point of water.
Sorry about the last comment but I worked in permafrost and discontinuous permafrost for 15 years of my engineering career and wrote papers on design parameters for northern utilities. Changes like they propose would require something pretty extraordinary in my opinion as permafrost currently exists very far south in isolated areas all the way into the US high mountains.
More fanciful model simulations by the computer gamers. Where is the calibration and verification ?
Its an unfortunate term but nevertheless valid ; mathematical and computational masturbation.
More claims without any data to back it up with, which is what AGW is all about.
They should try simulating the last interglacial instead, because we know the answer to that one. The permafrost melted, but CO2 or CH4 didn’t increase.
Nonsense! Increased forcing of the climate increases positive NAO/AO, that won’t warm the Arctic. The Arctic warms with increased negative NAO/AO, which is most profound in solar grand minima.
There is a near consensus of IPCC models that predict that increasing GHG’s will increase positive NAO/AO:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Sorry to be a troll, but that can’t be right. 97% of models predict that more threats of catastrophies result in more grant money.
Did they use the same computer Al Gore used to predict “no ice in the Arctic by 2013”.
A major factor that comes into play, is that permafrost ground thaws from the top down. Thawed ground then insulates the lower ground. Pioneering weeds quickly take advantage of thawed top-soil, not only improving the insulating value of the surface-dirt, but also taking up the water released by thawing.
If permafrost was as subject to ‘runaway’ melting as depicted, more of it would have been lost during the Medieval Warm Epoch.
Yes, there can be ‘some’/’various’ more or less dramatic melting and CO2-release events, particularly in special situations … but overall, across the vast expanses of permafrost country, the frozen structures hang in there pretty well, during warm spells. If it were otherwise, there wouldn’t be so much of it today.