The ultimate positive feedback for global warming!
-- Roger
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Most of Arctic's Near-Surface Permafrost May Thaw by 2100
December 19, 2005

BOULDER-Global warming may decimate the top 10 feet (3 meters) or
more of perennially frozen soil across the Northern Hemisphere,
altering ecosystems as well as damaging buildings and roads across
Canada, Alaska, and Russia. New simulations from the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half of the area covered
by this topmost layer of permafrost could thaw by 2050 and as much as
90 percent by 2100. Scientists expect the thawing to increase runoff to
the Arctic Ocean and release vast amounts of carbon into the
atmosphere.

The study, using the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (CCSM),
is the first to examine the state of permafrost in a global model that
includes interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice as
well as a soil model that depicts freezing and thawing. Results appear
online in the December 17 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

"People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a
fully interactive climate system model," says NCAR's David Lawrence,
the lead author. The coauthor is Andrew Slater of the University of
Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center.

About a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere's land contains permafrost,
defined as soil that remains below 32 degrees F (0 degrees C) for at
least two years. Permafrost is typically characterized by an active
surface layer, extending anywhere from a few centimeters to several
meters deep, which thaws during the summer and refreezes during the
winter. The deeper permafrost layer remains frozen. The active layer
responds to changes in climate, expanding downward as surface air
temperatures rise. Deeper permafrost has not thawed since the last ice
age, over 10,000 years ago, and will be largely unaffected by global
warming in the coming century, says Lawrence.

Recent warming has degraded large sections of permafrost across central
Alaska, with pockets of soil collapsing as the ice within it melts. The
results include buckled highways, destabilized houses, and "drunken
forests"--trees that lean at wild angles. In Siberia, some industrial
facilities have reported significant damage. Further loss of permafrost
could threaten migration patterns of animals such as reindeer and
caribou.

The CCSM simulations are based on high and low projections of
greenhouse-gas emissions for the 21st century, as constructed by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In both cases, the CCSM
determined which land areas would retain permafrost at each of 10 soil
depths extending down to 11.2 feet (3.43 meters).

For the high-emission scenario, the area with permafrost in any of
these layers shrinks from 4 million to just over 1 million square miles
by the year 2050 and decreases further to about 400,000 square miles (1
million square kilometers) by 2100. In the low-emission scenario, which
assumes major advances in conservation and alternative energy, the
permafrost area shrinks to about 1.5 million square miles by 2100.

"Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the
oceans," says Slater, who notes that runoff to the Arctic has increased
about 7 percent since the 1930s. In the high-emission simulation,
runoff grows by another 28 percent by the year 2100. That increase
includes contributions from enhanced rainfall and snowfall as well as
the water from ice melting within soil.

The new study highlights concern about emissions of greenhouse gases
from thawing soils. Permafrost may hold 30% or more of all the carbon
stored in soils worldwide. As the permafrost thaws, it could lead to
large-scale emissions of methane or carbon dioxide beyond those
produced by fossil fuels.

[ . . . ]

The rest, and some pictures, are at:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/permafrost.shtml

Roger Coppock wrote:
The ultimate positive feedback for global warming!

So how much additional CO2 would be added to the atmosphere
in a worse case scenario? Assuming there's a large scale
thaw?

Forget about GW for a bit. At what point does the CO2 level began
to affect our health just breathing the air? Already some models have
it reaching over 1000 ppm next century... what if it reaches 2000 ppm?
Would we still be able to breath the air?

Madness.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Roger Coppock wrote:
The ultimate positive feedback for global warming!

So how much additional CO2 would be added to the atmosphere
in a worse case scenario? Assuming there's a large scale
thaw?

There are some pretty grim scare stories out there involving methane which
degrades to CO2 fairly quickly.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1215-24.htm

Here is a more technical but less dramatic discussion:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227

Forget about GW for a bit. At what point does the CO2 level began
to affect our health just breathing the air? Already some models have
it reaching over 1000 ppm next century... what if it reaches 2000 ppm?
Would we still be able to breath the air?

I believe the work safety standards require levels below something like
5000ppm for 8 hour exposure. Frankly, though, I would expect many
unexpected health consequences for 24/7 exposure at levels well below that
(like even 2000ppm). What about effects on pregnancies, for example?
Better we just don't go there.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

"Roger Coppock" wrote
Most of Arctic's Near-Surface Permafrost May Thaw by 2100
December 19, 2005

Hahahahahahaahahah.... Who cares? Nobody. Everyone reading your stupid
Chicken Little post will be dead and burried before 2100.

So it doesn't matter in the slightest, even if you are correct.

Coppock, you are quite the cowardly fool.

Martin wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote
Most of Arctic's Near-Surface Permafrost May Thaw by 2100
December 19, 2005

Hahahahahahaahahah.... Who cares? Nobody.

Obviously wrong and 'ignorance' is a VERY weak argument.

Everyone reading your
stupid Chicken Little post will be dead and burried before 2100.

That is certainly possible. However, even in the presence of inevitable
mortality, 'quality of life' is usually valued.


So it doesn't matter in the slightest, even if you are correct.

Is there anything that 'doesn't matter' to someone? Even stepping on a bug
can matter to a Budhist. Your ignorance may matter to a teacher.


Coppock, you are quite the cowardly fool.

"NobodyYouKnow" wrote in message
Is there anything that 'doesn't matter' to someone? Even stepping on a bug
can matter to a Budhist. Your ignorance may matter to a teacher.

Budhisim is Satanism, as is all other forms of non-christian worship.

You have sentenced yourself to eternal damnation.

God is great.

Martin wrote:
"NobodyYouKnow" wrote in message
Is there anything that 'doesn't matter' to someone? Even stepping on
a bug can matter to a Budhist. Your ignorance may matter to a
teacher.

Budhisim is Satanism, as is all other forms of non-christian
worship.

Religious arrogance is a non-sequitur. The issue was 'does it matter' to
someone.


You have sentenced yourself to eternal damnation.

No. You have demonstrated your ignorancxe.


God is great.

So you are Muslim? It sounds better in Arabic..

"Even stepping on a bug can matter to a Budhist."
- - - - - "NobodyYouKnow"

I think you are referring to Jainists, not BuDDhists.
(Please note the correct spelling, two "d"s.) The
majority of Buddhists wouldn't care about stepping
on bugs. As Buddhists are a very diverse bunch
of people, there could be a few sects who do care
about stepping on bugs. However, I don't
personally know of any. I'll ask around and see.

For information on Jainism, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

Roger Coppock wrote:
"Even stepping on a bug can matter to a Budhist."
- - - - - "NobodyYouKnow"

I think you are referring to Jainists, not BuDDhists.
(Please note the correct spelling, two "d"s.) The
majority of Buddhists wouldn't care about stepping
on bugs. As Buddhists are a very diverse bunch
of people, there could be a few sects who do care
about stepping on bugs. However, I don't
personally know of any. I'll ask around and see.

For information on Jainism, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

They seem to differ from the Budhists only in that they claim that you can
be reborn as a god.