Thawing Permafrost May Be "Huge Facto...

Thawing Permafrost May Be "Huge Factor" in Global Warming

There are 35 comments on the Inter Press Service story from Feb 14, 2013, titled Thawing Permafrost May Be "Huge Factor" in Global Warming. In it, Inter Press Service reports that:

Scientists have now learned that when the ancient carbon locked in the ice thaws and is exposed to sunlight, it turns into carbon dioxide 40 percent faster.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Inter Press Service.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#1 Feb 15, 2013
Methane altho far less representative in our atmosphere, is a more powerful greenhouse gas.

But here's some good news.

"Bremerhaven, 24 January 2012. An international team of researchers has succeeded for the first time in completely reconstructing the layer of the Greenland ice sheet from the Eemian interglacial (130 000 to 115 000 years ago). Using this ice data, the scientists can now say how warm it became in Greenland at that time and how the ice responded to climate changes. The surprising conclusion of this study appears today in the scientific journal Nature: with air temperatures which were up to eight degrees Celsius higher than in the 21st century, the ice masses shrank far less than presumed compared to today. Consequently, the Greenland ice sheet also had a far smaller share in the rise in sea level at that time than has so far been assumed. If the current temperature rise in Greenland continues, the reactions of the ice sheet during the course of the Eemian interglacial may be seen as a possible future scenario for the ice masses of the island."
http://www.research-in-germany.de/120934/2013...
litesong

Everett, WA

#2 Feb 15, 2013
fun farts wrote:
But here's some good news.
'fun farts', trying to negate the present consequences of GHGs, can't even give a research report that supports the smiley face 'farts' of 'fun farts'.

Furthermore:

“We’re in uncharted territory,” says James Overland of the University of Washington. The weakening jet stream means “wild temperature swings and greater numbers of extreme events”. The last time the Arctic is believed to have been ice-free is during the Eemian period, about 125,000 years ago, when global sea levels were between four and six metres higher than today. However, current atmospheric CO2 levels are already far higher than during the Eemian; indeed, you would have to go back several million years to find any era in the Earth’s history to match today’s levels of this powerful heat-trapping “greenhouse gas”.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#3 Feb 15, 2013
It isn't CO2 that melts the ice, is it?

Co2 is supposed to increase temperatures, right? Well the study I referenced says that temperatures were 8* higher and the greenland ice sheets did not decrease the way we anticipate they would. That the melting of greenland was less and contributed less to sea level rise than we think would happen today.

8* warmer is 8* warmer no matter how that was achieved. Just so happens our eccentric orbit was more eccentric during the eemian and that alone would result in higher temperatures.

Can CO2 raise our current temps beyond 8*? Guess it'll have to if you want to see the catastrophic events that have been predicted.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#4 Feb 15, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
'fun farts', trying to negate the present consequences of GHGs, can't even give a research report that supports the smiley face 'farts' of 'fun farts'.
Furthermore:
“We’re in uncharted territory,” says James Overland of the University of Washington. The weakening jet stream means “wild temperature swings and greater numbers of extreme events”. The last time the Arctic is believed to have been ice-free is during the Eemian period, about 125,000 years ago, when global sea levels were between four and six metres higher than today. However, current atmospheric CO2 levels are already far higher than during the Eemian; indeed, you would have to go back several million years to find any era in the Earth’s history to match today’s levels of this powerful heat-trapping “greenhouse gas”.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#5 Feb 15, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
It isn't CO2 that melts the ice, is it?
Co2 is supposed to increase temperatures, right? Well the study I referenced says that temperatures were 8* higher and the greenland ice sheets did not decrease the way we anticipate they would. That the melting of greenland was less and contributed less to sea level rise than we think would happen today.
8* warmer is 8* warmer no matter how that was achieved. Just so happens our eccentric orbit was more eccentric during the eemian and that alone would result in higher temperatures.
Can CO2 raise our current temps beyond 8*? Guess it'll have to if you want to see the catastrophic events that have been predicted.
And?

Firstly, they don't tell us what "now" means. They say 21st century, but which year(s)? Do they mean Greenland temps now, or worldwide?

They also mention that sea level was 4-8 meters higher (as we know), & that that ice probably came from Antarctica. How much warmer was Antarctica then?

Can CO2 raise our temps another 8º C? Absolutely yes, especially if we release significant quantities of methane from the melting permafrost & from the continental shelves.

Ultimately, it won't matter where the melting ice comes from. If it melts, sea level rises. Icepacks then take thousands of years to re-accumulate.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#6 Feb 15, 2013
Also: It's wise not to forget that the Eemian, & all the other warm periods, were caused by natural forcings. We are raising CO2 10,000 times faster than natural changes do.

It would be very, very foolish indeed to think that that would make no difference in the patterns of warming & melting ice we'll see.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Also: It's wise not to forget that the Eemian, & all the other warm periods, were caused by natural forcings. We are raising CO2 10,000 times faster than natural changes do.
It would be very, very foolish indeed to think that that would make no difference in the patterns of warming & melting ice we'll see.
Do you doubt your own science belief?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#8 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Do you doubt your own science belief?
No.

Do you doubt your anti-science beliefs?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#9 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Do you doubt your anti-science beliefs?
No.I'm not anti- science. I doubt your scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>No.I'm not anti- science. I doubt your scientific science fiction.
I don't post science fiction. I could do so if necessary, though. There are lots of good writers out there.

I post science, & will continue to do so.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#11 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
And?
Firstly, they don't tell us what "now" means. They say 21st century, but which year(s)? Do they mean Greenland temps now, or worldwide?
They also mention that sea level was 4-8 meters higher (as we know), & that that ice probably came from Antarctica. How much warmer was Antarctica then?
.
Why don't you read the study and tell us. Or you could look at the anarctic studies and get the questions you have answered there.

Here's a quick look. Yes I know it's from an evil energy site. But it is a simple overlay of the holocene and the eemian. If you don't like where it came from, pull each data set and over lay it yourself, won't look any different.

http://energyandourfuture.org/uploads/12/vost...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#12 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you read the study and tell us. Or you could look at the anarctic studies and get the questions you have answered there.
Here's a quick look. Yes I know it's from an evil energy site. But it is a simple overlay of the holocene and the eemian. If you don't like where it came from, pull each data set and over lay it yourself, won't look any different.
http://energyandourfuture.org/uploads/12/vost...
Yes, the majority of other temp records for our interglacial do NOT line up with theirs, but still, their data show that Eemian temps were 2-3º C higher than the Holocene average.(Other sources say 1-2º C higher.)

Energy & our future also omits the "hockey stick" effect of the late 20th century, when temps have begun to skyrocket. We're already nearly 1º C above the Holocene average.

The latest projections suggest we're heading for 4-4.5º C higher by the end of the 21st century. Sea level was 4-8 meters higher during the Eemian. How much higher will ours be?

http://www.google.com/imgres...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/ja...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#13 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the majority of other temp records for our interglacial do NOT line up with theirs, but still, their data show that Eemian temps were 2-3º C higher than the Holocene average.(Other sources say 1-2º C higher.)
Energy & our future also omits the "hockey stick" effect of the late 20th century, when temps have begun to skyrocket. We're already nearly 1º C above the Holocene average.
The latest projections suggest we're heading for 4-4.5º C higher by the end of the 21st century. Sea level was 4-8 meters higher during the Eemian. How much higher will ours be?
http://www.google.com/imgres...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/ja...
The graphic I posted shows the eemian and the holocene as recorded in the antarctic ice core data. Greenland ice core data shows a higher temperatures and a higher degree of variation in temps.

Here's a comparison of greenland and antarctic data during the holocene. Notice that because of precession greenland temps are more variable than the antarctic temps. Also if you're inclined, take a look at activity, antarctic temps precede greenland temps in the changes illustrated.

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Nothing was eliminated in the graphic, the time period for the antarctic ice core data ends in 1900. At best if we were to retrieve data from the 20th century we might be able to achieve data from 1930. It takes time and pressure before the gases become sequestered in the ice usually stated at about 70 years but dependent on accumulation.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#14 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the majority of other temp records for our interglacial do NOT line up with theirs, but still, their data show that Eemian temps were 2-3º C higher than the Holocene average.(Other sources say 1-2º C higher.)
Energy & our future also omits the "hockey stick" effect of the late 20th century, when temps have begun to skyrocket. We're already nearly 1º C above the Holocene average.
The latest projections suggest we're heading for 4-4.5º C higher by the end of the 21st century. Sea level was 4-8 meters higher during the Eemian. How much higher will ours be?
I would disagree. We are not above the average of the holocene. We are still in declining temperatures as far as the holocene is concerned. We achieved thermal max approx 9000 years ago, we have been in declining temps since that time.

The good news is, if when greenland was 8* warmer, the ice sheet remained intact and did not contribute to sea level increase then if we do get to 4.5* warmer, greenland should be ok. I don't think we will get to 4.5* warmer but if we did doesn't look like that would cause castrophic ice melt or sea level rise, at least according to the referenced study.

The more we know the better decisions we make.
litesong

Everett, WA

#15 Feb 16, 2013
phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
Do you doubt your own science belief?
I do not doubt that "phud fetid feces face fiend" has no science & mathematics degrees. I do not doubt that "phud fetid feces face fiend" has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. I do doubt if "phud fetid feces face fiend" HAS a hi skule DEE-plooomaa. If "phud fetid feces face fiend" doesn't have a hi skule DEE-plooomaa, then he would be the sixth toxic topix AGW denier WITHOUT such.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#16 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not above the average of the holocene....if we do get to 4.5* warmer, greenland should be ok. I don't think we will get to 4.5* warmer but if we did doesn't look like that would cause castrophic ice melt or sea level rise, at least according to the referenced study.
The more we know the better decisions we make.
Wow, wrong & wrong. We are certainly warmer now, & shooting up very, very quickly. We are raising CO2 10,000 times faster than it rises with natural forcings. Will the ice melt 10,000 times faster?

Most would say the peak of our current interglacial was closer to 7 Kya, but 9 Kya may be close enough. Some give a range of 5-9 Kya.

Yes, much of the Greenland ice sheet was intact, but the study did NOT say we wouldn't be at risk for catastrophic sea level rise! Where on earth did you get THAT idea???

They specifically acknowledge that Eemian sea level was much higher (4-8 meters; others say 5-6 meters) & speculated that there must have been melting in Antarctica.

So, since Eemian temps were perhaps ~2º C higher, & we're heading for 4-4.5º C higher, what will our sea level be? How much higher?

Most say the Pliocene was ~3º C warmer, & sea level was ~25 meters higher. CO2 levels today are already higher than they have been for ~15 My, & CO2 is our major thermostat.

The Antarctic icecap began forming ~34 Mya when CO2 got "down" to ~450 PPM. We are heading for that by 2050.

So again, what will our sea level be in 2050? 2100? 2200?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#17 Feb 16, 2013
Oops. Forgot to post links. The colors are different studies by different groups using different proxies, confirming the truth of the hockey stick shape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_2007_A... (b)_(c).png

NASA's statement that CO2 is our main thermostat:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2...

Here's one showing how closely CO2, temps & sea level track:

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/Storms...

This is one showing the recent rise in methane has been even more dramatic than that of CO2:

http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/images/ima...

It's rather difficult to conclude we AREN'T in deep doo-doo.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#18 Feb 16, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not doubt that "phud fetid feces face fiend" has no science & mathematics degrees. I do not doubt that "phud fetid feces face fiend" has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. I do doubt if "phud fetid feces face fiend" HAS a hi skule DEE-plooomaa. If "phud fetid feces face fiend" doesn't have a hi skule DEE-plooomaa, then he would be the sixth toxic topix AGW denier WITHOUT such.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#19 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The graphic I posted shows the eemian and the holocene as recorded in the antarctic ice core data. Greenland ice core data shows a higher temperatures and a higher degree of variation in temps.
Here's a comparison of greenland and antarctic data during the holocene. Notice that because of precession greenland temps are more variable than the antarctic temps. Also if you're inclined, take a look at activity, antarctic temps precede greenland temps in the changes illustrated.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm
Nothing was eliminated in the graphic, the time period for the antarctic ice core data ends in 1900. At best if we were to retrieve data from the 20th century we might be able to achieve data from 1930. It takes time and pressure before the gases become sequestered in the ice usually stated at about 70 years but dependent on accumulation.
I hadn't seen such a large spike like the Greenland core here ~14 Kya. Interesting that it may ROUGHLY correspond to Meltwater Pulse 1-A, when sea level rose ~20 meters in less than 500 years, or perhaps 200 years. I saw a recent studay reporting evidence in Tahiti that it was associated with a sudden ice shelf collapse in Antarctica.

That would have been interesting - world-wide tsunamis, probably in the hundreds of meters tall when they approached shorelines, leaving sea level permanently ~20 meters higher - all in just a matter of hours or days.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#20 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Oops. Forgot to post links. The colors are different studies by different groups using different proxies, confirming the truth of the hockey stick shape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_2007_A... (b)_(c).png
NASA's statement that CO2 is our main thermostat:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2...
Here's one showing how closely CO2, temps & sea level track:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/Storms...
This is one showing the recent rise in methane has been even more dramatic than that of CO2:
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/images/ima...
It's rather difficult to conclude we AREN'T in deep doo-doo.
Sorry - 1st link doesn't work. Let's try again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_T...

It's from this Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_con...

Still testing other links....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Three Global Warming Skeptics Win Awards (Jun '14) 9 hr Time Will Tell 3
News EPA cooperated with group that dismisses climat... 11 hr SirPrize 7
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 12 hr Chelsea Fartton 64,725
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 13 hr hojo 40,077
The Pseudoscience of Global Warming 14 hr GIGO 133
News White House will override Obama's climate plan (Oct '17) 16 hr Big Al 4,740
News Global warming may have 'devastating' effects o... 18 hr don t drink the k... 4