Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Permafrost Loss Greater Threat Than Deforestation

Posted by samzenpus on from the keeping-the-cool dept.

Pierre Bezukhov writes "Emissions from thawing permafrost may contribute more to global warming than deforestation this century, according to commentary in the journal Nature. Arctic warming of 7.5 degrees Celsius (13.5 degrees Fahrenheit) this century may unlock the equivalent of 380 billion tons of carbon dioxide as soils thaw, allowing carbon to escape as CO2 and methane, University of Florida and University of Alaska biologists wrote today in Nature. Two degrees of warming would release a third of that, they said. The Arctic is an important harbinger of climate change because the United Nations calculates it's warming at almost twice the average rate for the planet. The study adds to pressure on United Nations climate treaty negotiators from more than 190 countries attending two weeks of talks in Durban, South Africa that began Nov. 28."

5 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Clathrate gun hypothesis by c0lo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If clathrate gun hypothesis is correct, the things may become interesting during our lifetime (which may be a shorter one).

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:Clathrate gun hypothesis by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The simple rebuttal is why hasn't the "clathrate gun" gone off some time in the past 650,000 years? From the link:

      The ice core data also shows that CO2 and methane levels have been remarkably stable in Antarctica--varying between 300 ppm and 180 ppm--over that entire period and that shifts in levels of these gases took at least 800 years, compared to the roughly 100 years in which humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels to their present high. "We have added another piece of information showing that the timescales on which humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere are extremely short compared to the natural time cycles of the climate system," says Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern in Switzerland, who led the research.

      There have been several shifts from glacial to interglacial climates during that time. My view is that if massive methane releases were a threat now, then we would have seen something similar during one of these times.

  2. I don't even read these stories anymore by paiute · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because 1. Man is influencing the climate, 2. Most of this change is going to be bad, 3. There is no political or social will to change our current behavior, and 4. Once shit hits the ecological fan, those with resources will shield themselves from the effects and those without resources will be fucked.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  3. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not sure the Canadian North can count as "more usable land" once thawed -- it's largely frozen muskeg swamp at the moment, somewhat usable due to permafrost since at least that way you don't sink into it.

    There's some interest in the northern seabed for gas exploration.

    Great bit on the construction of the trans-Alaskan highway, in Mitchner's Alaska. When they tore the top layer off the tundra their equipment, paving, everything sunk into mud. The only way to build roads was on top of the Permafrost. Nobody going to do any mining, drilling or anything else if the ground is thawed and you have the biggest plain of mud in the world between you and your dreamed of profits.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Re:And half the Arctic countries don't care by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. There have been reports that we really can't stop global warming anyways. It is "too late".

    It's not a binary issue. The more we increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the worse it gets on a smooth curve. There is the global warming that's already occurred and is in the pipeline that we can't stop. That includes the fact that once we get really serious about CO2 emissions it will take 30 or 40 years to to build the infrastructure necessary to convert to non-carbon energy sources so CO2 levels will continue to rise until then. But in the end the total global warming we will see (barring a significant change in the Sun) is largely set by the maximum level that CO2 reaches in the atmosphere. There is good reason to slow down and eventually stop carbon dioxide emissions to keep things from getting worse than they already have to be.