New paper debunks the “Permafrost Bomb”

[Billy_Bob]

New paper debunks the “Permafrost Bomb”

Now this is funny as hell.. Actual measurements show that permafrost out gassing is happening at a much slower rates than models predicted.....

A new paper published in Nature pours cold water on the idea that a sudden melting of arctic permafrost might cause a spike in global temperatures.

The abstract from the paper;

Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change, but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.

Read More: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html

Global Circulation Model Failure.. Once again... Got to love it! More alarmist lies about CO2 and Methane in permafrost and their OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED rates of release are placed firmly into the light of day showing extreme exaggeration by alarmists and their failed models.

 

[Crick]

Do you have access to the full article?

I see that the abstract states "Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate" but I don't see any indication that they believe release rates will be less than predicted in AR4 and 5 and I note that the last of the graphics is a collection of evidence indicating numerous instances of abrupt thawing in Alaska.

If you have text from the article that indicates they believe release rates will be less than anticipated, I'd appreciate seeing it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A cursory look at observed releases of Methane and CO2 are well below modeled expectations by factors of 2.2 and 3.6 respectively. Doing the math indicates that the exaggeration by alarmists was extreme.. I also noted that the depth of matter, which could hold these gases was also over estimated by huge factors. They found that most areas of overburden were only two or three meters deep, thus the amount of gasses that they could hold is far less than initially thought.

In short, the rate that CO2 and Methane is being released is overstated and the amount sequestered was grossly overstated. Looks to me like things are about to get really ugly on the CAGW side of the fence. All of their fear mongering is being shown baseless.

The paper is copyrighted and specifically notates no reproduction without written permission and full citation.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html

Large quantities of organic carbon are stored in frozen soils (permafrost) within Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. A warming climate can induce environmental changes that accelerate the microbial breakdown of organic carbon and the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. This feedback can accelerate climate change, but the magnitude and timing of greenhouse gas emission from these regions and their impact on climate change remain uncertain. Here we find that current evidence suggests a gradual and prolonged release of greenhouse gas emissions in a warming climate and present a research strategy with which to target poorly understood aspects of permafrost carbon dynamics.

Now that is good news. Let us hope that further research shows that to be correct.

 

[Old Rocks]

However;

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions

1. Ivar S. A. Isaksen1,2,
2. Michael Gauss1,3,
3. Gunnar Myhre1,2,
4. Katey M. Walter Anthony4and
5. Carolyn Ruppel5

Abstract
[1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4 would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of CH4release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime, and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 as a result of atmospheric chemical processes. Despite uncertainties in emission scenarios, our results provide a better understanding of the feedbacks in the atmospheric chemistry that would amplify climate warming.

Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions - Isaksen - 2011 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

Not exactly reassurring.

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic methane sources: Isotopic evidence for atmospheric inputs

1. 
   
   
   • R. E. Fisher1,
   • S. Sriskantharajah1,
   • D. Lowry1,
   • M. Lanoisellé1,
   • C. M. R. Fowler1,
   • R. H. James2,
   • O. Hermansen3,
   • C. Lund Myhre3,
   • A. Stohl3,
   • J. Greinert4,
   • P. B. R. Nisbet-Jones5,
   • J. Mienert6 and
   • E. G. Nisbet1

Abstract
[1] By comparison of the methane mixing ratio and the carbon isotope ratio (δ13CCH4) in Arctic air with regional background, the incremental input of CH4 in an air parcel and the source δ13CCH4 signature can be determined. Using this technique the bulk Arctic CH4 source signature of air arriving at Spitsbergen in late summer 2008 and 2009 was found to be −68‰, indicative of the dominance of a biogenic CH4 source. This is close to the source signature of CH4 emissions from boreal wetlands. In spring, when wetland was frozen, the CH4 source signature was more enriched in 13C at −53 ± 6‰ with air mass back trajectories indicating a large influence from gas field emissions in the Ob River region. Emissions of CH4 to the water column from the seabed on the Spitsbergen continental slope are occurring but none has yet been detected reaching the atmosphere. The measurements illustrate the significance of wetland emissions. Potentially, these may respond quickly and powerfully to meteorological variations and to sustained climate warming.

Arctic methane sources Isotopic evidence for atmospheric inputs - Fisher - 2011 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Spitzbergen, still the wetlands are the primary source in that part of the Arctic for new methane.

 

[IanC]

AR5 draft predictions for methane showed a grossly inflated expectation compared to measured reality.

 

[Crick]

Which means what Ian? Do you actually believe that because there hasn't yet been detected dramatic outgassing in modern times (ignoring the mystery craters in Siberia that suggest precisely that) it cannot happen?

 

[mamooth]

Permafrost feedbacks, being poorly understood, haven't been included in most models.

If they can be quantified better, they will be included. So studies like these will result in a cool bias being removed from models.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Which means what Ian? Do you actually believe that because there hasn't yet been detected dramatic outgassing in modern times (ignoring the mystery craters in Siberia that suggest precisely that) it cannot happen?

There can not be a dramatic shift. IR absorption and emitence through both gases is only 1/6 of what the alarmist's predicted in AR4 and AR5. The models are grossly inaccurate representations of earths climatic systems. Even one of Old Crocks papers admits it but he failed to post that portion (if he even has access to the full papers or understands them).

 

[Crick]

There can not be a dramatic shift. IR absorption and emitence through both gases is only 1/6 of what the alarmist's predicted in AR4 and AR5.

Let's see the evidence supporting this claim Billy Boy

 

[SSDD]

Permafrost feedbacks, being poorly understood, haven't been included in most models.

If they can be quantified better, they will be included. So studies like these will result in a cool bias being removed from models.

Wonder why? Every other feedback that is of questionable existence or poorly understood has been included into the models if a + sign can be put in front of it. Part of the reason the models are failing miserably.

 

[Crick]

Negative feedbacks are included for aerosols, cloud cover, increased albedo and others.

 

[percysunshine]

.
A model is just that. A model.

Only the most deluded of adolescents believe that their model airplane is a real airplane.

Global warming models do not fly. For good reason. Climate is a chaotic, non-linear, dynamic system. By definition, it cannot be predicted.

Not that people will not try to predict it. Too much grant money is at stake.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb fuck. Model airplanes fly. Using the same physical laws that real airplanes do. And no one claims that models are perfect replication of reality. They are not, but they are useful.

Given that the denier models, ie. nothing is changing, have been wrong for the last 50 years, and that the prediction of warmer atmosphere and ocean has been exactly what has happened, I would have to put a lot more value on what the scientists have to say than you deniers.

 

[SSDD]

Model airplanes are based on sound physics and replicate reality as evidenced by repeated experimental trials....get the physics wrong and the model won't fly...also evidenced by repeated experimental results. Climate models fail because they are based on faulty physics, and imaginary ad hoc feedback loops.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dumb fuck. Model airplanes fly. Using the same physical laws that real airplanes do. And no one claims that models are perfect replication of reality. They are not, but they are useful.

Given that the denier models, ie. nothing is changing, have been wrong for the last 50 years, and that the prediction of warmer atmosphere and ocean has been exactly what has happened, I would have to put a lot more value on what the scientists have to say than you deniers.

Model air planes require solid physics. IF the physics are wrong the model will fall to the ground or break apart in flight just as the alarmist models have done in computer simulations.

Put simply, AGW physics are WRONG and that is why their predictions fail with 100% certainty.

 

[mamooth]

So, the remaining spokespeople for the denier cult are the open frauds like Billy and SSDD.

I'd suggest the normal people should try to take denialism back from the frauds, but there essentially are no normal deniers. All the non-crazy people have bailed from the denier cult.

 

[jc456]

So, the remaining spokespeople for the denier cult are the open frauds like Billy and SSDD.

I'd suggest the normal people should try to take denialism back from the frauds, but there essentially are no normal deniers. All the non-crazy people have bailed from the denier cult.

well one thing for certain, you ain't normal. LOL... you have a way about you to most always bring the focus to you. Ever notice that?

 

[mamooth]

You're a fine loyal lapdog, jc. Do your masters reward you with treats?