See below for reasonably convincing numerical treatment of the permafrost runaway event. It claims to shows that, with political and technological lag, we are likely to cross the tipping point and will be powerless to stop runaway climate change without geoengineering
A ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "ClimateSight" <[email protected]> Date: Oct 3, 2012 4:10 AM Subject: [New post] Permafrost Projections To: <[email protected]> ** climatesight posted: "During my summer at UVic, two PhD students at the lab (Andrew MacDougall and Chris Avis) as well as my supervisor (Andrew Weaver) wrote a paper modelling the permafrost carbon feedback, which was recently published in Nature Geoscience. I read a draft ver" Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on *ClimateSight* <http://climatesight.org/author/climatesight/> Permafrost Projections<http://climatesight.org/2012/10/02/permafrost-projections/> by climatesight <http://climatesight.org/author/climatesight/> During my summer at UVic, two PhD students at the lab (Andrew MacDougall and Chris Avis) as well as my supervisor (Andrew Weaver) wrote a paper modelling the permafrost carbon feedback, which was recently published in *Nature Geoscience* <http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1573.html>. I read a draft version of this paper several months ago, and am very excited to finally share it here. Studying the permafrost carbon feedback is at once exciting (because it has been left out of climate models for so long) and terrifying (because it has the potential to be a real game-changer). There is about twice as much carbon frozen into permafrost than there is floating around in the entire atmosphere. As high CO2 levels cause the world to warm, some of the permafrost will thaw and release this carbon as more CO2 - causing more warming, and so on. Previous climate model simulations involving permafrost have measured the CO2 released during thaw, but haven't actually applied it to the atmosphere and allowed it to change the climate. This UVic study is the first to close that feedback loop (in climate model speak we call this "fully coupled"). The permafrost part of the land component was already in place - it was developed for Chris's PhD thesis, and implemented in a previous paper<http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/full/ngeo1160.html>. It involves converting the existing single-layer soil model to a multi-layer model where some layers can be frozen year-round. Also, instead of the four RCP<http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/box/nclimate1058_BX1.html>scenarios, the authors used DEPs (Diagnosed Emission Pathways): exactly the same as RCPs, except that CO2 *emissions*, rather than concentrations, are given to the model as input. This was necessary so that extra emissions from permafrost thaw would be taken into account by concentration values calculated at the time. As a result, permafrost added an extra 44, 104, 185, and 279 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere for DEP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 respectively. However, the extra warming by 2100 was about the same for each DEP, with central estimates around 0.25 °C. Interestingly, the logarithmic effect of CO2 on climate (adding 10 ppm to the atmosphere causes more warming when the background concentration is 300 ppm than when it is 400 ppm) managed to cancel out the increasing amounts of permafrost thaw. By 2300, the central estimates of extra warming were more variable, and ranged from 0.13 to 1.69 °C when full uncertainty ranges were taken into account. Altering climate sensitivity (by means of an artificial feedback), in particular, had a large effect. As a result of the thawing permafrost, the land switched from a carbon sink (net CO2 absorber) to a carbon source (net CO2 emitter) decades earlier than it would have otherwise - before 2100 for every DEP. The ocean kept absorbing carbon, but in some scenarios the carbon source of the land outweighed the carbon sink of the ocean. That is, even without human emissions, the land was emitting more CO2 than the ocean could soak up. Concentrations kept climbing indefinitely, even if human emissions suddenly dropped to zero. This is the part of the paper that made me want to hide under my desk. This scenario wasn't too hard to reach, either - if climate sensitivity was greater than 3°C warming per doubling of CO2 (about a 50% chance, as 3°C is the median estimate by scientists today), and people followed DEP 8.5 to at least 2013 before stopping all emissions (a very intense scenario, but I wouldn't underestimate our ability to dig up fossil fuels and burn them really fast), permafrost thaw ensured that CO2 concentrations kept rising on their own in a self-sustaining loop. The scenarios didn't run past 2300, but I'm sure that if you left it long enough the ocean would eventually win and CO2 would start to fall. The ocean always wins in the end, but things can be pretty nasty until then. As if that weren't enough, the paper goes on to list a whole bunch of reasons why their values are likely underestimates. For example, they assumed that all emissions from permafrost were CO2, rather than the much stronger CH4 which is easily produced in oxygen-depleted soil; the UVic model is also known to underestimate Arctic amplification of climate change (how much faster the Arctic warms than the rest of the planet). Most of the uncertainties - and there are many - are in the direction we don't want, suggesting that the problem will be worse than what we see in the model. This paper went in my mental "oh shit" folder, because it made me realize that we are starting to lose control over the climate system. No matter what path we follow - even if we manage slightly negative emissions, i.e. artificially removing CO2 from the atmosphere - this model suggests we've got an extra 0.25°C in the pipeline due to permafrost. It doesn't sound like much, but add that to the 0.8°C we've already seen, and take technological inertia into account (it's simply not feasible to stop all emissions overnight<http://climatesight.org/2012/05/30/modelling-the-apocalypse/>), and we're coming perilously close to the big nonlinearity (i.e. tipping point) that many argue is between 1.5 and 2°C. Take political inertia into account (most governments are nowhere near even creating a plan to reduce emissions), and we've long passed it. Just because we're probably going to miss the the first tipping point, though, doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and give up. 2°C is bad, but 5°C is awful, and 10°C is unthinkable. The situation can *always* get worse if we let it, and how irresponsible would it be if we did? *climatesight <http://climatesight.org/author/climatesight/>* | October 2, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Tags: arctic <http://climatesight.org/?tag=arctic>, climate change <http://climatesight.org/?tag=climate-change>, climate models<http://climatesight.org/?tag=climate-models>, education <http://climatesight.org/?tag=education>, environment<http://climatesight.org/?tag=environment>, global warming <http://climatesight.org/?tag=global-warming>, permafrost<http://climatesight.org/?tag=permafrost>, science <http://climatesight.org/?tag=science>, UVic<http://climatesight.org/?tag=uvic>| Categories: Science Lessons <http://climatesight.org/?cat=4183609> | URL: http://wp.me/puG7a-w9 Comment<http://climatesight.org/2012/10/02/permafrost-projections/#respond> See all comments<http://climatesight.org/2012/10/02/permafrost-projections/#comments> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=485fef6befb22ebfd8cc7565abc969d0&email=andrew.lockley%40gmail.com>. *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://climatesight.org/2012/10/02/permafrost-projections/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
