From the UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Using statistically modeled maps drawn from satellite data and other sources, U.S. Geological Survey scientists have projected that the near-surface permafrost that presently underlies 38 percent of boreal and arctic Alaska would be reduced by 16 to 24 percent by the end of the 21st century under widely accepted climate scenarios. Permafrost declines are more likely in central Alaska than northern Alaska.
Northern latitude tundra and boreal forests are experiencing an accelerated warming trend that is greater than in other parts of the world. This warming trend degrades permafrost, defined as ground that stays below freezing for at least two consecutive years. Some of the adverse impacts of melting permafrost are changing pathways of ground and surface water, interruptions of regional transportation, and the release to the atmosphere of previously stored carbon.
“A warming climate is affecting the Arctic in the most complex ways,” said Virginia Burkett, USGS Associate Director for Climate and Land Use Change. “Understanding the current distribution of permafrost and estimating where it is likely to disappear are key factors in predicting the future responses of northern ecosystems to climate change.”
In addition to developing maps of near-surface permafrost distributions, the researchers developed maps of maximum thaw depth, or active-layer depth, and provided uncertainty estimates. Future permafrost distribution probabilities, based on future climate scenarios produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), were also estimated by the USGS scientists. Widely used IPCC climate scenarios anticipate varied levels of climate mitigation action by the global community.
These future projections of permafrost distribution, however, did not include other possible future disturbances in the future, such as wildland fires. In general, the results support concerns about permafrost carbon becoming available to decomposition and greenhouse gas emission.
The research has been published in Remote Sensing of Environment. The current near-surface permafrost map is available via ScienceBase.
###
I’ll hazard a guess that “widely accepted” means that RCP 8.5 was used to prime the scaremongering as that would produce the most buzz during COP21.
“Remote Sensing of the Enviroment” reminds me of an otherwise highly intelligent friend who bought into remote sensing of events to make stock picks. Result -200k.
Permafrost melting… and refreezing, is a natural process that has gone on in the Arctic for millennia. One might call it normal climate variation.
Increased organic litter causes more insulation, causes rise in permafrost, causes the drunken forest, causes permafrost to melt, causes bogs, causes increased plant growth, causes increased organic litter, causes more insulation, causes permafrost rise. It’s part of the dynamic equilibrium of the boreal forest.
The knuckle heads @ur momisugly the USGS don’t even know what the climate will be by 2100!!
“A warming climate is affecting the Arctic in the most complex ways,” said Virginia Burkett, USGS Associate Director for Climate and Land Use Change. “Understanding the current distribution of permafrost and estimating where it is likely to disappear are key factors in predicting the future responses of northern ecosystems to climate change.”
I read that paragraph 5 times. You could pick up any written page, randomly select any paragraph, and read it backwards and it would make as much sense as this gibberish spoken by Virginia Burkett and quoted in the above article.
This is unadulterated Globalwarmese it is structured and sounds like English but it makes no sense.
I just get a kick out her “trendy” title. Our taxes at work.
What caused the delay such that Obama had wrapped up his Climat Paris 2015 comments before this was available?
I predict between 6 and 20 civil and regional wars by 2100.
“USGS projects large loss of Alaska permafrost by 2100”
They are being ridiculously optimistic. It would be fantastic if the flat-ish parts of Alaska lost their permafrost so we could plant a few million more acres of wheat. Wheat that gets 18+ hrs a day of sunlight no less!
But it’s a pipe-dream. The best you’ll ever be able to hope for up there is a small garden that you have to work the crap out of to unfreeze every Spring.
How much modeled permafrost loss
Would modeled permafrost loss cost
If modeled permafrost loss costs
Caused lost costs
hard to say !
OOH, I think I broke my tongue !!!!
Once again let’s us congratulate climate ‘science’ for its ability to learn some lessons. In this case the lesson that by making your predicted for 85 years ahead. You will never be in a position where you can be asked why you got it so very, very wrong. You therefore can get away with virtual anything, with no scientific skill nor honesty required.
“Projection” is a weasel word used by weasels to imply prediction but leaving them an out if it doesn’t happen. There is a place for this word in science, but climate science frequently abuses it. They imply their projections are predictions when they use them for policy guidance, they are quite happy letting politicians mistakenly use them as predictions. If the projections later don’t pan out, THEN they remind everyone that they were not predictions but only projections. Downright shameful.
average joe:
A failed climate projection is a failed climate prediction.
You rightly say this is often misrepresented when you write
Yes, there are people who behave like that and even worse are the members of the warmunist fifth column who pretend that climate modellers don’t make predictions. In all such cases, refer them to the IPCC AR5 Glossary which provides these definitions of climate ‘prediction’ and ‘projection’ .
n.b. “Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions by their dependence on the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used, which is in turn based on assumptions concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realized”.
A “climate projection” is a “climate prediction” that is “probabilistic in nature”. In principle, this is the same as predicting that about half of future coin tosses will fall ‘heads’. A failed climate projection is a failed climate prediction.
Richard
The USGS press release is here, containing some useful links:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4400#.Vl4QEL9ZgbQ
The paper is here (gated):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425715300778
Here is the money sentence from the press release (emphasis added): “Future permafrost distribution probabilities, based on future climate scenarios produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), were also estimated by the USGS scientists.” They don’t say which scenarios. I’ll bet that the horrific headline results resulted from RCP8.5 — a 21st century of slow tech growth, rapid population growth, and the 2nd half powered (like the 19thC) by coal.
Details about RCP8.5 here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/is-our-certain-fate-a-coal-burning-climate-apocalypse-no/
This article is a useless read. Very vague and projected well into the future. Even if it occurred I would have to ask “so what?” I live in Fairbanks and a 24% reduction in near surface permafrost would have zero detrimental impact and in fact would improve maintenance costs on those very small sections of highway that cross near surface permafrost areas. I swear all you southerners seem to think we can’t dig a foot down in the ground without hitting solid ice.
It does count in the quota system for all agencies to contribute to the climate alarm mission.
Meet their quota and draw their big fat salaries which average twice for comparable education, training, etc in the private sector.
These added costs for government workers are significant. Are they justified costs or loss costs, or is it time to take a meat axe to big government.
How come no one ever sticks their neck and and writes in plain English “permafrost throughout region A has declined by X% since 1880?”
>>Using statistically modeled maps drawn from satellite data and other sources, U.S. Geological Survey scientists have projected…<<
You may quit reading at this statement, because the rest will just be bull sh-T. When are people going to start refusing to accept this kind of thing as "science?"
straight after funding for such ‘science’ stops
Ice age maps show most of Alaska was ice free during the last glaciation.
What that looked like at the beginning of the glaciation is anybody’s guess.
If the map had been drawn from satellite data, there’d be no worries. Since they use “other sources”, i.e. Invalidated, IPCC computer model output, then they can create all the scare stories they want.
How did that organic carbon, carbon that will be released if the ground thaws, get there in the first place?
During an interglacial of course. Maybe during the HTO ~8 Ka to 6 Ka.
But since none of us will be here in 2100 to call them out, such a distant forecast is “safe”.
Wonder where all that peat, methane, and plant material came from?,
“Northern latitude tundra and boreal forests are experiencing an accelerated warming trend that is greater than in other parts of the world”
As a northern resident I am always intrigued by this claim.
How is it measured?
Is it measured?
And is it reasonable.?
My inquiries into the unmanned remote weather stations installed by Environment Canada turned up a couple of bizarre notes, these power dependent(airport) stations were not calibrated to measure below -40 Celcius, hence any such cold readings plateau, they reported heat haze as light rain and have all been replaced under a contract to Navv Canada with a new and apparently improved modules, for which I failed to find the sensor data.
I fully expect Yellowknife Northwest Territories to show a quite pronounced warming as of last year, in their infinite wisdom the airport authority has moved the weather station into the wind envelope of the new terminal building and surrounded it with black dirt .Right across from the parking lot.
Now we are enjoying a mild start to our winter, that blob is my friend, as long as the jet stream jogs south, we are blessed with milder cold spells and milder fuel bills.
But when the next cold front oozes down from the pole, then we will see how much the Arctic has warmed.
I expect when we get a solid week of -50C temperatures these will find many of our citizens unprepared, especially those dependent on propane.
.
Reminds me of a story I heard on NPR a month ago. “Rising Temperatures Kick-Start Subarctic Farming In Alaska”, about Meyer’s Farm in Bethel. One is left with the impression that the permafrost is melting all over Alaska to the extent that farming is now possible. Wow! A real miracle. As a former Alaskan c. 1957 – 1980 I smelled a rat and did a little research online. I found this in Modern Farmer: “Permafrost Farming: It’s Possible!” which gives the true story. Yes, they are farming out there, but it takes two years to thaw the permafrost small sections at a time. NPR…News Probably (not) Right.
Why would thawed permafrost be a bad thing? And it’s not as if “not frozen ALL the time” means the same as “not frozen MOST of the time.” Prediction: a substantial proportion of the carbon released by (partly) thawed permafrost will be taken up by living creatures. Attitude: more living creatures is not a bad thing.
There is a shovel ready job if ever I saw one. Or should I say pick ready. This ghost town needs to go.
Moral of the story don’t build on permafrost.
Tried to ask ALGORE, why you building that Multi-million dollar beach home so close to that rising ocean?
Nice try 1oldliar.
I have family in Dawson City.
Figure 3. This damaged building in Dawson City, Canada, shows what can happen when the warm interior of a building causes the permafrost underneath to thaw.
—Credit: Andrew Slater
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/people.html
old liar answers the question “why would?” with “when the stuff”.
Actually, I’m showing what a liar you are with your bogus “reference”.
clipe,
After reading all his comments that contradict what President Reagan would agree with, it’s easy to see that this guy is faking it by using Reagan’s name. If he’s used Trotsky it would be believable. But Reagan? Nope. That’s what a chameleon does.
1oldy:
You certainly didn’t tell the truth when you asserted that over the past 18 years, CO2 does not follow temperature.
I posted 2 charts, showing empirical observations. I’ve posted those charts several times before, so you could hardly have missed them. The one showing 18 years flatly contradicts your false assertion.
I would say it’s time for you to start apologizing to folks here, but in my experience, prevaricators never do. Especially old ones.
1oldy,
Keep cherry-pickin’, it does you no good.
What is it about “CO2 follows temperature” that’s so hard for you to understand?
Here’s another chart showing that temperature leads CO2:
Here’s another one:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
Ferdinand Engelbeen posted this chart showing that temperature leads CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
Here’s another paper, showing that T leads CO2:
http://www.robles-thome.talktalk.net/carbontemp.pdf
More evidence that T leads CO2:
And another peer reviewed paper stating that T leads CO2:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
More proof, graphed:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph
More direct evidence that T leads CO2:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.jpg
Yet another view: CO2 lags temperature:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/BGDL/images/Vostok_CO2_airt.gif
And this has been thoroughly hashed out here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
Either 1oldy is completely deluded, or he’s just not honest. Which?
clipe,
I think you’re right. 1oldy reminds me of the deluded person who argued throughout a couple hundred comments here recently that H2O cannot exist as a single molecule in the air (!?!).
They both have the same weird quality: neither one of them can ever admit they’re wrong, no matter how many commenters point it out. The link I posted to the WUWT article makes it clear that 1oldy simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about (or worse: you’re right about him).
1oldnwise4me@reagan.com
Now, please explain to me what the “lie” was?
It is referred to as a “Lie of Omission”
michael
on December 1, 2015 at 9:24 pm, 1oldnwise4me@reagan.com wrote: “What was “omitted?””
The implied causation of increasing CO2 as a result of warming was omitted. As you note, CO2 has risen over the past 18+ years and temperature has not; this may well be due to the fact that anthropogenic production of CO2 isn’t driven by temperature, it’s driven by cars (that’s a joke BTW). It is independent of temperature.
There’s an assumption implicit in the AGW theory that CO2 leads temperature. For the past 18+ years we’ve seen CO2 rise with no concomitant rise in temperature, suggesting that CO2 increases of the order observed during that time has no measurable effect on temperature.
This can’t be used as evidence CO2 causes a temperature increase, or that a temperature increase doesn’t cause an increase in CO2. CO2 may increase independent of temperature due to the release of CO2 by human activity, such release having no measurable effect on temperature.
I hope that’s clear. I know it’s complicated, but it should be fairly obvious?
1oldndum says:
“Blah, blah, &etc…”
For example: “Doesn’t show the past years clearly.” <–repeated, as if that makes it true. But it doesn't.
To you, nothing is ‘clear’ when reality is involved. That's why you're so confused. I posted a list of empirical observations that thoroughly debunks what you claimed. So, who should we believe? You? Or Planet Earth? The answer is obvious: you are flat wrong, as always.
All your posts are simply baseless assertions. They are your opinions, but no one else’s. No one agrees with your kookie pseudo-science. All you ever post are assertions based on your scatterbrained view of reality. I posted a slew of real world observations, all proving that changes in CO2 directly result from changes in temperature. I posted peer reviewed papers stating the same thing. But all you can do is make baseless assertions, based on nitpicking that no one else does, or has any need to do. You reject reality, not because it’s wrong, but because you are wrong. If you admitted that all those real world observations are based on empirical evidence, you would have no choice but to fold. Your ideas are bankrupt.
I challenged you to produce similar charts showing the opposite: that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆temperature. As usual, you failed.
You are no different from the guy here who posted numerous arguments recently, insisting that there is not a single H2O molecule anywhere in the atmosphere. He posted hundreds of comments, and his arguments were *exactly* the same as yours: baseless assertions that gave his opinion, just like you’re doing. And if you will notice, no one agrees with you, either. Other readers have pointed out that you’re getting “pummeled” here, and others have commented that your arguments are pure carp. You’re a loser who argues with everyone. Spot the consensus.
People can post their opinions here, even when those opinions are baseless assertions like yours are. But your irrational arguments are getting thoroughly destroyed. You’re claiming that the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare isn’t called “dangerous” by your ilk. And you are getting demolished here by real world, empirical observations. But your only response is a series of persona opinions. So you lose those arguments, because all you’ve got is lame assertions. But they’re trumped by reality.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have got nothing on you. You are blindly fixated on your “dangerous man-made global warming” belief, and like any deceptive chameleon/fellow traveler you pretend that you’re an admirer of Reagan. But you’re fooling no one here, which is what a fool tries to do. Trot on back to Hotwhopper where you belong. Really, they’re your birds of a feather there. Here, we discuss science-based reality; something you don’t understand.
To repeat my challenges to you (which you always ignore): post the names of just one-tenth of one percent of scientists and engineers who contradicted the OISM petition (co-signed by more than 31,000 professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s). A tenth of a percent should be easy-peasy… if you’re right. But I suspect that rather than finding a couple dozen names who say the petition is wrong, you will just post more baseless assertions.
Next, I challenged you to post charts showing that changes in temperature are caused by changes in CO2. That’s the central alarmist argument: that a rise in CO2 will trigger runaway global warming. So, show us.
But so far, you haven’t been able to meet either challenge. Your failure to step up to the plate proves that you’ve got nothin’ but your alarmist propaganda. That doesn’t work here. We know when someone is trying to wing it when they don’t have the necessary knowledge or education. You’re just a chihuahua trying to run with the big dogs here.
1oldliar asks: Now, please explain to me what the “lie” was?
Per your “reference”
Pretending you weren’t making a connection between “drunken houses” and “greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane” is lying.
Have any of you posters read, or watched the building of
the Alaskan highway back in the 40’s?? Bulldozers had
a problem sinking into “melting permafrost”;over 70 years
ago, melting permafrost was a problem. Some people seem
to think the world began the day THEY were born, and
anything that happens now is ,” unprecedented”. They ignore
history.
in philosophy the call it the egocentric predicament.
I was discussing Marxism with a college student 2 years ago who seem to think that it was only just discovered as an ideology since he began learning about it in school. He suggested that an old man like me, who went to college in the 70″s couldn’t possibly know anything about it. Of course, they are teaching it today as a good thing that could save humanity if only we would acquiesce to the principles.
Heck with permafrost…we need Greenland to thaw out and Antarctica to thaw out and Siberia to thaw out with lots of links to play! Gee, the tropics expand…oh no!!!
More taurine digestive residue for USGS.
Here are some of the grain growing boondoggles of past years:
http://www.grainnet.com/articles/the_elevators_of_alaska-16410.html