A survey of 41 scientists — including seven University of Alaska Fairbanks researchers — estimates the amount of carbon released from thawing permafrost by 2100 will be 1.7 to 5.2 times larger than previously estimated. Their conclusions, reported Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature, describe permafrost thawing as a likely accelerator of global warming.
“Our collective estimate is that carbon will be released more quickly than models suggest, and at levels that are cause for serious concern,” the article states.
The higher figures come about because of an ongoing reevaluation of the carbon stored in permafrost.
In most soils such material is typically in the top several feet, but in frozen soils those carbon-filled sediments can be much deeper.
Because of that, the estimated amount of carbon stored in northern soils has tripled in recent years, to roughly 1,700 billion tons. That’s four times more than all the carbon emitted by human activity since the Industrial Revolution and twice as much as is currently present in the atmosphere.
“Soils in the north are cold,” said Ben Abbott, a UAF doctoral student at the Institute of Arctic Biology and co-author of the Nature article. “It’s like a big refrigerator, and all that material is just stored.”
With that much carbon-filled material present, a small change in the estimated amount released could make a notable difference in climate change projections. Most scientists believe gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, both of which are released by warming permafrost, contribute to global warming.
But researchers studying northern areas with permafrost have admittedly sparse data, said Ted Schuur, a University of Florida professor who co-authored the article. Because of that, he said, numerous members of the Permafrost Carbon Research Network were surveyed to collect a larger picture, combining scientific data with their predictions. A National Science Foundation grant paid for the work.
“We don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, but these are probably the best people to ask,” Schuur said.
Abbott said all the scientists in the survey felt existing models were too conservative in their projection of emissions from thawing permafrost. He said most, including him, thought the amount of carbon released would be roughly three to four times the current estimates.
The release of methane from thawing permafrost is considered an important ingredient, because it’s 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Even though it represents about 2 to 3 percent of the emissions from melting permafrost, Abbott said, it could account for about half the warming.
If thawing happens at the rate the scientists believe it will, its greenhouse effect will match that of worldwide deforestation, according to the article. It still concludes, however, that fossil fuel consumption will be the biggest factor in the next century.
“It’s not likely to overshadow what’s being burned by humans, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important,” Schuur said. “It’s something that could amplify the change that’s already going on.”
Abbott said he and other researchers have more work ahead to test their hypotheses through field research. He’s spent recent summers at Toolik Field Station, a research center north of the Brooks Range, and said he’s looking forward to another season of testing soil cores and water samples for gas emissions.
Other UAF researchers who participated in the survey included Terry Chapin, IAB professor emeritus; Guido Grosse, research assistant professor at the Geophysical Institute; Dave McGuire, professor of ecology; Chien-Lu Ping, natural resources professor; Vladimir Romanovsky, Geophysical Institute professor; and Katey Walter Anthony, research assistant professor with the International Arctic Research Center.
Contact staff writer Jeff Richardson at 459-7518.


The layperson (reference the WSJ comments, or Invictus' use of this article to boost his argument) will interpret this editorial as an indictment of climate science. Mr. Botkin can't actually dispute the high probability that humans are changing the climate, nor come up with a list of "true believer" climate scientists (Mr. Krugman & the Wright bros don't count), but he can smear climate scientists and affirm true disbelievers.
Not surprisingly, I don't share your high opinion of the WSJ editorial.
Botkin takes one statement by a NASA scientist -"Based on evidence, what we do have is, unequivocally, the conditions for the emergence of life were present on Mars—period, end of story" - plus an economist's essay as his basis for concluding that climate change science has been corrupted by "true believers". I mean, an economist? Really?
It should be noted that the actual position of climate scientists has been one of skeptical science (reference many denialists counterarguments). They are discovering new data and refining estimates all the time. A recent example is the recent study indicating that warming would likely not reach the extremes that some were predicting. Are all climate scientists as objective as their craft demands? I doubt it. But it is clear that on this subject the overwhelming majority of true believers are deniers, who cloak themselves with the false mantle of "skepticism".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577058111041127168.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t
It's available for free and is written by (shockingly!) a real scientist who still remembers what it is to be a real scientist. He's one of these guys that the Alarmists say don't exist.
I think why some scientists get defensive is when they are constantly having to defend their work to people whom don't even understand their methods or statistics. "It must be snake oil science!!"
I have yet to read an article where someone whom understands the science, statistics actually gives a good reasoned argument of any limitations of climate science. Well other than the article you just posted, but he's speaking on the limitations of the scientific method.
The correlation doesn't show us cause-and-effect relationships.
Maybe, the humanity is more active because the climate is warmer? When a new ice age hits, we will be hiding in natural caves again, hunting for occidental bear that was able to survive the cold, and will not brag about powerful mankind that is able to change the entire Earth.
The heat emitted by the sun has not increased over the last four or five decades and, if anything, is trending downwards, so it would be highly unlikely that all the planets in our solar system are warming.
The temperature of Mars fluctuates strongly due to the effect of massive dust storms which occur from time to time. The dust is dark and absorbs solar heat. The claim that Mars is warming is based on only two observations 22 year apart, which were influenced by these dust storms.
The claim that Jupiter is warming is based on models, but has never been observed.
For more, check out:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
If your alleged 'man-made climate change' due to CO2 emissions is causing global warming, how in the world do you explain the absolute bonafide fact that both Mars and Jupiter (and potentially nearly EVERY planet in our Milky Way Galaxy, for that matter!) are currently also experiencing a gradual warming that directly mimics the Earth's slight temperature change at this time?
Did the methane gas from bovine flatulation reach all the way through millions of miles of space to do THAT, too? Really? ;P
All of those people claimed that there would be magnetic polar shifts which would vastly affect the climate and the planet Earth as a whole in a drastic way.
This same information is accepted by almost every scientist out there who is worth their degree.
Planetary changes? Sure. They have occurred for literally millions, if not billions, of years.
The junk science and flagrant charlatan abuse of society as a whole is the whole 'man-made disaster' song and dance / dog and pony show routine. THAT is the phony baloney crap that is completely wrong in every possible way.
Just wanted to drag the conversation back on track. Have fun trying in vain to dispute those facts or post more factually incorrect nonsense in an attempt to reinforce your lost arguments.
Really? Who?
"The junk science and flagrant charlatan abuse of society as a whole is the whole 'man-made disaster' song and dance / dog and pony show routine. THAT is the phony baloney crap that is completely wrong in every possible way."
So what exactly are you saying here? How is it wrong? What part of the analysis was incorrect, which hypotheses did you not agree with and why?
This is how the scientific process works. You look at the data. Your rant is nothing but a childish diatribe. Challenge the argument. Speak like an adult.
The reason I posted the links to those programs is to comply with childofsol's personal request:
'Did the History Channel, NatGeo and Discovery Channels reveal the earth's creation to you, or did you discover that out on your own? Please provide the links or details to your pole-shift climate change theory. I've seen some junk out there, but who knows, maybe I missed something really important.'
So, to answer your new topic-shifting question, woodchopper, those resources were readily available and include hard factual scientific data and real-world scientists who are NOT out there trying to sell people carbon offset credits.
And yes, I do dig deeper into some pretty heavy printed tomes, white papers, TED Webinars and attend scientific conferences in person, however, I do not denigrate documentaries nor limit my personal eduction to just blogging on the Web, like many here.
One of the links did not even talk about pole shifts.
One was just about the magnetic north moving.
Documentaries are great but they don't have the depth to able to show you the real data. And they are produced for the average joe so they often simplify the complexity of scientific issues. Sometimes they even present speculation as scientific evidence. You've got to be careful about taking that information as fact.
You claim I'm shifting the topic but I'm not. I'm critiquing the information that you are presenting. Just because you don't like what I have to say is not reason to attack my character. Challenge my arguments
Here is a reference for you to a scientific peer reviewed journal.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5748/657.abstract
I wish I had as much money as Craig Compeau or Rudy Gavora. I'd erect a bronze statue in honor of their stupidity right in front of my office downtown to remain in perpetuity, or until they both admit that they were fools to deny global warming.
You claim that he debunks the pole shift theory, but in fact, his article CONFIRMS it!
Not only that, I never mentioned a single word about global superstorms. Not one single iota!
Worst of all, the author makes several glaring factual (and easily proven wrong!) errors.
For example, he claims that the the polar shift is about 40 Km / Yr (Kilometers per year), when in fact it has been stated many times over that it is actually shifting about 40 MILES per year.
Pretty darned sloppy 'scientific' calculation / reporting of 'facts', Phil.
In the same article, he's pontificating about the correlation between solar radiation, UV and X-rays and obviously later on corrected his previous statements 'debunking' the original author using the following statement:
[UPDATE: I've been made aware that some forms of UV light can affect DNA].
Once again, SLOPPY WORK for someone who is supposed to be a professional and a so-called 'debunker' of misinformation. Get it right!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/09/no-a-pole-shift-wont-cause-global-superstorms/
Magnetic reversal "imminent," - National Geographic http://tinyurl.com/86cfmhx
2012 Pole Shift - Mayan and I Ching prediction – History Channel http://youtu.be/1aPNcUJuiLY
Earth: Polar Drilling Yields Climate Clues – DiscoveryNews http://tinyurl.com/d6b87ap
(This last one only goes back a mere 7 million years, long before man ever set foot on earth. Of course, the 200 million years ago study is even more compelling).
Compass Direction, True North Parting Ways – DiscoveryNews http://tinyurl.com/5sybubu
You liberals just LOVE your PBS, so here is an excellent program that also highlights my point:
Nova - Magnetic Storm - Earth's Invisible Shield http://youtu.be/NJUTUFAWfEY
I suggest that you try watching / reading some of these materials before you flap your jaws about your alleged (and many times over, proven FALSE) so-called anthropogenic climate change. Thank you, and good night, Gracie!
Last link, I love it again! Nova is awesome, although it doesn't prove what you claim other than that geomagnetic reversals have happened and they are usually closer to the geological timescale than one such as our society experiences. Thanks for posting!
But must you be so insulting to people who don't think exactly the way you do? And don't go whining about "but they started it, not me."
And why am I picking on you? Oh, I dunno.
I'm just really sick and tired of the bickering back and forth, the lack of respect from both sides, the need to beat folks into intellectual submission.
No one ever learns anything in a screaming match. And in these times, it's critical that we actually listen to one another. Not try to one up each other. The louder the "volume," the less the listening.
The polar drilling bit said nothing about pole shifts.
Here is a quote from the discovery article:
"Every 100,000 years or so, the field flips, meaning that compasses would point south, rather than north. It's been about 780,000 years since the last reversal -- before Homo sapiens existed. Geologic history shows the shifts are random and highly variable. Scientists can't predict when one will occur, or even if the planet is in the middle of one."
So is it every 100,000 years, one million years, or highly variable and random. The author of this article makes this very confusing. Also she repeatedly confuses true and magnetic north
My advice to you is to read at the source if you want to find the facts. Dig into the primary literature.
Also I'm not sure how these references are supposed to relate to climate warming.
Yes, I know that these are really big words / terms & all you know is the lemming-like mantra of ‘man-made global warming’ in the pseudo-scientific community, but PLEASE take some time to ingest a little more than the flavor of the day. Read research studies, watch documentaries & educational programs concerning those disciplines I mentioned in my first paragraph, as well as other related subjects such as quantum physics & a general study of the universe at large BEFORE you espouse your incorrect point of view.
The next post will include a few of the links that you challenged me to provide (included separately only due to word limitations for each post here).
Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region
http://www.lter.uaf.edu/dev2009/pdf/1350_Tarnocai_Canadell_2009.pdf
http://science.nasa.gov/missions/carve/
also my girlfriends working on a carbon budget for the gulf of alaska for the next couple of years ;)
Every Alaska engineer knows this.
Who are these "scientists"? And how can we stop paying them to waste whats left our economy?
"The vast majority of permafrost soils have insignificant concentrations of organic carbon. Thawing of these soils will release inconsequential amounts of CO2."
Actually your characterization is incorrect. There are many kinds of permafrost. Some have high amounts of ice while others have low ice contents. Depth of permafrost also varies. The formation and distribution of permafrost can influence nutrient cycling and carbon storage on the landscape. This is because the permafrost keeps these soils cold and biological activity is low. This allows the accumulation of organic matter more than 10 feet deep in some places.
If the soils warm on the north slope there is a lot of accumulated organics that will be consumed by aerobic soil organisms that will respire co2. That is what the concern is, and is why northern ecosystems are considered carbon sinks.
So are you an Engineer?
from:
http://www.alaska.edu/uaf/cem/ine/publications/index_newdocs/CRREL_permafrost_guide15dec08web.pdf
"ABSTRACT
Late-Pleistocene syngenetic permafrost exposed in the walls and ceiling of the CRREL permafrost tunnel consists of ice- and ORGANIC-RICH SILTY SEDIMENTS penetrated by ice wedges. Evidence of long-continued syngenetic freezing under old-climate conditions includes the dominance of lenticular and micro-lenticular cryostructures throughout the walls, ice veins and wedges at many levels, THE PRESENCE OF UNDECOMPOSED ROOTLETS, AND ORGANIC-RICH LAYERS THAT REFLECT THE FORMER POSITIONS OF THE GROUND SURFACE." (Emphasis mine.)
NSF's (national science foundation) budget was 7 billion last year, compare that to Department of Defense whose budget is 700 billion, 100 times greater. Whoops maybe you should have checked the figures before making that statement.
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2011/index.jsp
http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html
"Insignificant concentrations of organic carbon" - yeah, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around that one.
Um, Mr. Optimist, what would YOU call Alaska's vast mineral wealth of coal and crude oil? It's nothing if not organic carbon.
Plus, it's my understanding that the real concern of thawing permafrost is the release of methane, the byproduct of anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, not CO2.
I'll give you a hint it comes from the ground and runs the economy of this state.
Would we have to start canoeing to work?
http://nsidc.org/
The issues I don't know how to immediately answer is what fraction of the total water would drain to the ocean and what would drain to the interior, but someone with GIS skills could help us.
shoot me an email at aceandgary@gmail.com and I'll see who I can get ahold of to answer your question! I'm kind of interested too know ;)
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/water/hydro/
some fun facts are,
Alaska has more than 40% of the entire nation's surface water resources
About three-fourths of all fresh water in Alaska is stored as glacial ice that covers nearly 5% of the state
Total Estimated Water Use--406 million gallons per day, 82% surface water, 18% ground water (for people)
anyway if you have more questions just email me...
Challenge: critique anthropogenic climate change without referencing Al Gore or one-world conspiracy theories. You know, just the science.
And if there isn't already too much on your plate, please provide the links or details to your pole-shift climate change theory. I've seen some junk out there, but who knows, maybe I missed something really important.
You REALLY need to watch the History Channel, NatGeo and Discovery Channel programs they played over the last couple of years about the magnetic pole shifting that has naturally and VERIFIABLY occurred over the past several billion years, basically since this planet was created...by GOD (I know that last part really sticks like a bone in your throat, doesn't it? LOL!).