Alaska permafrost study reveals larger global warming problem
Published Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — Alaskans should watch where they step. University of Alaska professor Chien-Lu Ping and a team of researchers have dug more than 100 holes around the state, taking permafrost samples for a paper published in the October issue of the journal Nature Geoscience.
In the paper, Ping concluded frozen Arctic soil contains nearly twice as much organic material and greenhouse gases as previously thought. He based his conclusions on the information collected in Alaska and more than 10 years of research.
According to measurements by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Earth’s atmosphere contains about 387 parts per million of carbon dioxide — about 824 billion tons in total. Alaska tundra and the Canadian tundra zone holds one-sixth that amount — about 137 billion tons — and the amount in Russia is still unknown, Ping said.
If the permafrost melted, “it would release a big flux of gases into the atmosphere,” he said.
Permafrost is any material that remains frozen for two or more years. Most permafrost, however, has an active layer that warms and cools with changes in temperature while staying below the freezing point.
The greenhouse gases within the permafrost are contained in organic material — the semi-frozen remains of ancient plants — found on top of and in the upper layers of permafrost. When the organic material thaws, it begins to decompose, releasing carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. As the Arctic grows warmer, more permafrost thaws, causing more organic material to decompose. And Ping’s study has revealed more organic material than ever just waiting to decompose.
A 2- to 3-degree rise in average air temperature could turn the Arctic tundra from a carbon sink to a carbon source. A carbon sink absorbs more carbon dioxide than it produces while a carbon source, does the opposite. Currently, dead plants in the Arctic tend to freeze faster than they can decompose, thus storing their carbon in the permafrost.
The groundwork for Ping’s study was created through several different projects for different agencies since 1992.
Ping is based at the University of Alaska’s Palmer Research and Extension Center. He said his team of researchers included students, biologists, hydrologists and soil scientists.
Ping and researchers used jackhammers to dig a meter into permafrost to obtain samples. He compared the permafrost to concrete and said it was hard to delve that deeply into the frozen ground.
Before his work, Arctic permafrost had not been widely sampled and the few measurements that did exist only studied the top 40 centimeters of permafrost areas, Ping said.
The top “50, 60 centimeters to a meter are (the layers) most likely subject to change,” he said.
After completing this study, Ping said the next step is to analyze the data and convert it into information that can be used by computer models to forecast how much greenhouse gas will be released if the permafrost melts.
Christian Beer of the Max Planck Institute of Biogeochemistry in Germany wrote in the same issue of Nature Geoscience that Ping’s findings give researchers a better idea of the situation, but the potential consequences of melting permafrost are still unknown.
One possibility is that the greenhouse gases released by melting permafrost could cause further warming of the Arctic, in turn melting more permafrost and creating a loop.
“The projected temperature increase of up to 6 degrees Celsius in the Arctic region of the active-layer ... could cause widespread degradation of permafrost within the next 100 years. As a result, some of the carbon stored within these soils may be released, potentially setting in motion a positive feedback loop of warming,” Beer wrote.
Contact staff writer Christi Hang at 459-7590.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
If they would just stop digging all those holes! Seriously though the headline is misleading. The study did not reveal a larger global warming problem. It suggested that a problem could exist under the right circumstances.
Permafrost May Not Thaw Even During Global Warming(NASA)
September 18, 2008 — The impact of warming on the permafrost may not be as bad as forecast, according to evidence that comes in the form of a wedge of ancient ice found at an old mining site in the Yukon in Canada. (The New York Times)
Thirty percent of the Earth’s surface is land. Twenty percent of the land is permafrost. There is over a trillion tons of carbon frozen and buried in the land permafrost. More than half the land covered by the topmost layer of permafrost will probably thaw by 2050.
A frozen peat bog in western Siberia the size of France and Germany put together contains about 500 billion tons of carbon. Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the Earth, with an increase in average temperature of about 3C in the last 40 years.
Even more Siberian permafrost is under the ocean, an area six times the size of Germany containing about 540 billion tons of carbon. That submarine permafrost is perilously close to thawing. Three to 12 kilometers from the coast the sea sediment is just below freezing. The permafrost has grown porous, there is a loss of rigor in the frozen sea floor, and the surrounding seawater is highly oversaturated with solute methane.
"...Researchers were investigating "alarming" reports in the last few days of the release of methane from long frozen Arctic waters, possibly from the warming of the sea…” --"Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record," AP, 27 Aug '08
“If the Siberian (submarine) permafrost-seal thaws completely and all the stored gas escapes, the methane content of the planet's atmosphere would increase twelve fold. The result would be catastrophic global warming.” --"A Storehouse of Greenhouse Gases Is Opening in Siberia," Spiegel, 17 April '08
So the sky is falling?
No, the ground is melting and subsiding, so the sky will have to fall further before it smacks you in the head.
Thanks for explaining that.
So since the permafrost is to blame for global warming, Al Gore better redo his movie and slide shows. We better start drilling for more oil and get rid of the permafrost all together, then we won't have to worry about it. Also if I own land with permafrost on it, does that mean my carbon footprint is way too big? The EPA better get on this. So is it the permafrost's fault now? Or is it the global warming that is causing the permafrost to melt? Or is the permafrost melting that is causing the global warming? Is anybody else's head spinning? Obama will fix it!!
The news just keeps getting better and better! During the previous interglacial period (~50,000ybp), there was no permafrost in the interior of Alaska and all flora & fauna flourished. The glory days may be returning.
Nickeli, did you read the ancient permafrost article in Science you are referencing? It is always wise to go back to the original scientific source and make your own conclusion. You can use google scholar to track it down.
Oh and never take something a scientist named Beer says, to seriously.
I took 16 years to figure this out? Can someone break this down year by year for us? How much did this 16 years cost?
If we ask this question "Is there a larger global warming problem?" I take it the answer would be "Yes, no, kinda, sorta, maybe, but not really."
That was time and money well spent I guess.
Another reason for the EPA and liberals to make sure Alaska becomes a national park and there is no development. They are after wood burning now, just wait to they put laws into effect about walking in unapproved areas because of the potential of air pollutants.
Let us see! Look Dick! Look Jane see Spot swim in our new fishing hole! Nonsense, the Arctic frozen and thawed dozens of times!
SO WHAT!
As for predictive validity, these predictions are make by people who can't forecast the weather 2 hours in advance nor predict the price of General Motors stock 5 minutes in the future.
--Rebuttal info From the Science News --
"Although model-based projections of future climate are now more credible than ever before, the authors note they have no way to say exactly how reliable those projections are. There are simply too many unknowns involved in the future evolution of climate.....'
Ref:
-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm
"An article titled "Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period" by scientists Edward Brook and Thomas Blunier has been published in "Science""
The article discusses the correlative relationship, or "bi-polar see saw," between climate change in Antarctica and Greenland. Examining ice core samples and methane gas measurements, [snip] show that when Antarctica temperatures decreased, temperatures in Greenland generally increased, and when temperatures in Antarctica increased, temperatures in Greenland decreased. The research precisely compares the timing of rapid shifts in climate over the past 100,000 years in Greenland and Antarctica, showing that rapid warming in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with rapid cooling in the Southern Hemisphere.
Ref:
-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010110075151.htm
Also, Watch the History Ch's program about "The Little Ice Age".
Must be a slow news day to have to resort to such a non story.
This shouldn't be news to anybody, this was all known and broadcasted on channel-9 four years ago, featuring "hawkeye" from MASH.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/
Here is a segment pertaining to this article,old news to me but interesting nonetheless ("The Heat Is On", 2nd from the top)
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1404/video/watcho...
Good thing we have been in a cooling trend for the last few years.
joe 45- what there saying, is that if the earth warms more, that permafrost could release double the greenhouse gases they thought it would. i wouldn't call that a non story.
To global warming deniers in general: science isn't black and white like religion. while a couple reports might be inconclusive, the majority point towards manmade global warming.
recently, it appears conclusive (pretty strong word for scientists) that man made global warming is real.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=warm...
Ping is a "scientist" who is engaged in junk science to get more grants for carrying out still more junk science.
Who was here 17,000 years ago to cause the climate to warm 20F in 50 years?
Burning BS at CNN news entertainment?
In the days of the dinosaurs the temperature at the North Pole was +70.
Hay guys, we are still in the last ice age!!! And, we will remain so till the Polar ice caps and Greenland melt.
I am thankful for global warming! It makes living in Alaska and the northern 2/3 of the USA possible!
:)))))
secprog---
I thought that science was based on objective facts, which would make it "black and white", and religion was more subjective, based on faith and beliefs. Are you trying to tell me that I had it backwards all this time. That does explain Al Gore, though, and "consensus" science.
I personally think that the Earth is going back to the way it was in the beginning. The Bible says the Earth will be a paradise and man will inherit it. Not trying to offend anyone.
Here is why humans have nothing to do with "Global Warming"..
We-were-not-here!
------ abstracted from--
"Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age"
ScienceDaily (Jun. 19, 2008)
"The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive "reorganization" of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature spurt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors."
"According to the researchers, the first abrupt warming period beginning at 14,700 years ago lasted until about 12,900 years ago, when deep-freeze conditions returned for about 1,200 years before the onset of the second sharp warming event. The two events indicate a speed in the natural climate change process never before seen in ice cores, ....."
"Each yearly record of ice can reveal past temperatures and precipitation levels, the content of ancient atmospheres and even evidence for the timing and magnitude of distant storms, fires and volcanic eruptions, said White. The cores from the site -- located roughly in the middle of Greenland at an elevation of about 9,850 feet -- are four-inch-diameter cylinders brought to the surface in 11.5-foot lengths, .."
This is interesting, but I am left wondering if more research is being done to find out if this is part of a natural cycle, such as in ice ages or the reversal of the Earth's magnetic field; or are we reading about this now because it is something completely new to science?
The chances of the human race ending from a large asteroid impact are much greater than the chances of the human race ending because of "global warming", yet, much more money is put into researching a normal cycle of earth's climate than studying/watching the solar system for large objects whose path may intersect that of our planet and pose a REAL threat to life, still, climate change is interesting science at least.
Skewt, astute scientist that you are, I wonder if you could explain:
1. what is the definition of junk science?
2. how specifically does Dr. Ping's research fall into the "junk science" category? Please point to specific flaws in his methodology and explain how he should have designed and conducted his study to correct those flaws.
And Al Bore received a Nobel Prize for a "propaganda" entertainment movie given to him by a bunch of 1,000 watt bulbs who never bothered to read the core sample data.
In the last 600 million years there has been 3 hot house warm periods and 4 ice house cold periods.
We may be leaving the 4 th cold period.
However, the History Channel's "Little Ice Age" program about the cold spell from about 1350 to 1830 shows the profound consequences of a cold weather, war, famine, and plague resulting a 30-50% human die off.
As for the frozen tundra and permafrost -- it takes 1 Btu to raise 1 pound of water 1 degree F. However, it requires 4 Btu to raise 1 pond of ICE 1 degree converting it to liquid water.
Thawing 10s of billions of pounds of moss insulated ice in 3 months is quite a task for Mother Nature.
I think It's natural. Like the O zone. There's a hole in it for a reason. It's a natural hole that opens and closes as a release. Like the pop off valve on your boiler.
After reading these posts, I now, finally understand how some think intelligent design is science. The general lack of understanding on how the scientific thought process works is frightening. Science is almost never black and white and is always in flux.
That said, haven’t read Ping’s paper so can’t personally make a judgment on his science. Till I do I won’t comment on it.
chewtoy---
Please work through your obvious disdain and answer a layman's question. If the science of man-made global climate change is so inexact, even less exact than religion according to secprog, and always in a state of flux according to you, why do the advocates of said theory want to change the world, and send our economy into free fall? If it's no more exact than a hand of Black Jack, I don't think that it is prudent to bet the mortgage.
glacierles -- perhaps the Global Warmingers have no interest in prudence. Perhaps their only interest is controlling policy, amassing wealth/power/status, and simply lording over the ignorant proletariat.
I guess (judging by the comments on this thread) it is business as usual until our entire civilization collapses. Why worry, be happy. There is more carbon in methane hydrate than all the oil, coal, and natural gas combined. While you would have to burn that other fossil fuel to put the carbon into the air in the form of greenhouse gas, methane hydrate need only melt. There is an estimated 400 billion tons of methane inside permafrost ice, and about 10,000 billion tons inside ice under the ocean. A sudden release of less than 10 billion tons would be like doubling the CO2 level in the air. On the other hand, global warming is just a hoax cooked up by scientists to get government grants, right?
Aric,
junk science does not fulfill scientific standards.
Ping stated that permafrost contains 137 million tons of carbon. Do you believe that 100 holes of a depth of 1 meter allow to calculate such a value with high precision? Digging such a hole into the soil using a jackhammer is the best way to get wrong information because the system under study is strongly damaged by such activities.
There is only a weak correlation between the rise of the globally averaged near surface temperature and the increase of the carbon dioxide concentration within the atmosphere. And even a high correlation does not imply causality. However, Ping and colleagues simply argue that when more carbon is emitted, it becomes warmer. This is a speculation that lacks substance. This has nothing to do with scientific standards.
By the way, permafrost may thaw, but it does not melt. Only ice within the soil may melt. Melting of the soil matrix, by far the largest portion of a layer of permafrost, needs very high temperatures.
I am not inclined to buy into the "Global Warming" doomsday arguments because "Global Warming" is a recurring natural event! An event that has happened many times long before humans were even here!
Frankly, it seems more like a marketing scam such as buying real estate because it's price always goes up. Or worse yet, the idea you can inflate an economy at 3% compounded forever! [Since, 1943 the annual USA inflation rate has been 3% per the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank's data from 1800-2007]
As for the Arctic thawing, if the ground cover thaws out it will start producing O2 and sequestering C02 perhaps like the peat bogs; which, do not rot because of some chemical preservative.
The idea of running up the price of oil to cut C02 emissions is causing a world wide economic disaster.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.