[dohboi]

Yet another negative (damping) feedback turning in to a positive (exacerbating, re-inforcing) one.

The linked reference, and associated article, indicate that tropical forests are likely to transitions from carbon sinks to carbon sources much sooner than previously assumed by consensus climate science; which implies that ECS by 2100 may be greater than previously assumed:

Nottingham, A.T., Meir, P., Velasquez, E. et al. Soil carbon loss by experimental warming in a tropical forest. Nature 584, 234–237 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2566-4

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2566-4

Abstract: "Tropical soils contain one-third of the carbon stored in soils globally, so destabilization of soil organic matter caused by the warming predicted for tropical regions this century could accelerate climate change by releasing additional carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Theory predicts that warming should cause only modest carbon loss from tropical soils relative to those at higher latitudes, but there have been no warming experiments in tropical forests to test this. Here we show that in situ experimental warming of a lowland tropical forest soil on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, caused an unexpectedly large increase in soil CO2 emissions. Two years of warming of the whole soil profile by four degrees Celsius increased CO2 emissions by 55 per cent compared to soils at ambient temperature. The additional CO2 originated from heterotrophic rather than autotrophic sources, and equated to a loss of 8.2 ± 4.2 (one standard error) tonnes of carbon per hectare per year from the breakdown of soil organic matter. During this time, we detected no acclimation of respiration rates, no thermal compensation or change in the temperature sensitivity of enzyme activities, and no change in microbial carbon-use efficiency. These results demonstrate that soil carbon in tropical forests is highly sensitive to warming, creating a potentially substantial positive feedback to climate change."

See also:

Title: "Carbon dioxide loss from tropical soils increases on warming" by Eric Davidson

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02266-9

Extract: "Besides the clear take-home message that the responses of soil respiration processes under climate change should not be represented in Earth-system models only by simple Q10 or Arrhenius functions, Nottingham and co-workers’ study adds to recently accumulating evidence that tropical forests are unlikely to continue indefinitely to be carbon sinks as the world warms. Tropical soil carbon does not receive as much attention as do the large and vulnerable soil-carbon stocks at high latitudes, which pose major concerns as a potential source of positive feedback to climate change. But tropical-forest soils also contain substantial carbon stores that might be more vulnerable to loss in a warming world than was previously recognized."

[asg70]

much sooner than previously assumed

Yet more "worse/faster than previously predicted" language that has shown up on the news pretty much daily for the last decade at least. Climate scientists chronically underplay their models to the point of negligence.

[dohboi]

And yet another major feedback:

Ocean Stratification is Not Good News. Very Not Good.

https://climatecrocks.com/2020/09/28/oc ... -not-good/

This seemingly technical finding has profound and troubling implications. The more stable the upper ocean, the less vertical mixing that takes place. This mixing is a primary means by which the ocean buries warming surface waters. So the surface warms up even faster. It’s what we call a “positive feedback”—a vicious cycle.

Our study suggests that key positive feedbacks (amplifying factors) related to reduced ocean heat might lead to more rapid surface warming in the decades ahead than many of the models predict.

[vtsnowedin]

Oh no not hockey stick Mann again!

[Newfie]

More news, bad news, from the arctic re: methane.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... tists-find

Remember Cid Yama?

[vtsnowedin]

More news, bad news, from the arctic re: methane.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... tists-find

Remember Cid Yama?

From the article:

At this moment, there is unlikely to be any major impact on global warming, but the point is that this process has now been triggered. This East Siberian slope methane hydrate system has been perturbed and the process will be ongoing,” said the Swedish scientist Örjan Gustafsson, of Stockholm University, in a satellite call from the vessel.

I also question if the process has been triggered as they assert or has been ongoing for decades without anyone up there measuring things to know about it?
And finally what if anything can we do about it that doesn't involve killing three billion people?

[Tanada]

Very long report at link below quote.

An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020

Abstract

The risk of points-of-no-return, which, once surpassed lock the world into new dynamics, have been discussed for decades. Recently, there have been warnings that some of these tipping points are coming closer and are too dangerous to be disregarded. In this paper we report that in the ESCIMO climate model the world is already past a point-of-no-return for global warming. In ESCIMO we observe self-sustained melting of the permafrost for hundreds of years, even if global society stops all emissions of man-made GHGs immediately. We encourage other model builders to explore our discovery in their (bigger) models, and report on their findings. The melting (in ESCIMO) is the result of a continuing self-sustained rise in the global temperature. This warming is the combined effect of three physical processes: (1) declining surface albedo (driven by melting of the Arctic ice cover), (2) increasing amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere (driven by higher temperatures), and (3) changes in the concentrations of the GHG in the atmosphere (driven by the absorption of CO2 in biomass and oceans, and emission of carbon (CH4 and CO2) from melting permafrost). This self-sustained, in the sense of no further GHG emissions, melting process (in ESCIMO) is a causally determined, physical process that evolves over time. It starts with the man-made warming up to the 1950s, leading to a rise in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere—further lifting the temperature, causing increasing release of carbon from melting permafrost, and simultaneously a decline in the surface albedo as the ice and snow covers melts. To stop the self-sustained warming in ESCIMO, enormous amounts of CO2 have to be extracted from the atmosphere.

model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost

[dohboi]

Thanks for that, T (I guess :/ )

More evidence that we are hitting tipping points:

Some Tropical Forests in Brazil Are Already Releasing More Carbon Than They Absorb

https://earther.gizmodo.com/some-tropic ... 1845914059

For years, climate scientists have been sounding the alarm about the increasing likelihood that the Amazon rainforest, now one of the biggest absorbers of carbon in the world, could actually become a source of carbon within just 15 years. New research shows that for some other kinds of tropical forests nearby, that’s already happening.

That’s due in large part to intentional forest burning. In South America, mining, cattle ranching, and soybean farming industries frequently set trees ablaze to make room for their operations, turning forests into open pastures.

That means forests contain less foliage to suck greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere. To make matters worse, when a tree catches fire, it releases all the carbon it sequestered in its lifetime, meaning the forests become a source of planet-warming emissions. And amid the climate crisis, this problem is even more severe, because amid hotter and drier conditions, the forests don’t produce enough humidity to quickly put out the flames, meaning more area burns with less effort.

A new study, published in Science Advances on Friday, aimed to see how South American forests’ carbon intake has changed in recent years. To do so, the authors analyzed greenhouse gas monitoring data from 1987 to 2020 on 32 deciduous, semi-deciduous, and evergreen forests—each of which has seen deforestation—in the lush state of Minas Gerais in southeastern Brazil. Altogether, the area they examined spanned some 81.5 acres (33 hectares).

By plugging this data into statistical models, the authors found that on average, these forests are now sucking up 2.6% less carbon per year than they were 33 years ago. At the same time, the forests’ carbon output from fires increased by 3.4% per year, meaning overall, they’re losing their ability to absorb the gas. These changes were enough to push the forests over the edge from carbon sinks to carbon sources. The authors fear their findings may be able to be extrapolated to tropical forests in the region as a whole.

The data shows that the switch happened in 2013. That year, on average, the examined forests released 0.14 U.S. tons per 2.5 acres (0.13 metric tons of carbon per hectare), or the equivalent output of driving 323 miles in a diesel car.

The authors’ findings are particularly troubling because separate research recently found that the importance of tropical forests’ carbon sequestering is nearly as important as that of the Amazon rainforest.

Vinícius Andrade Maia, et.al,

The carbon sink of tropical seasonal forests in southeastern Brazil can be under threat

, Science Advances, (2020)
https://advances.sciencemag.org/lookup/ ... dv.abd4548

[dissident]

The early warnings that the Amazon rain forest is going to transition into a savanna. Humans may not care now, but they will start caring later when it is way too late.

[Whitefang]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... lac_hg.png

I am still trying to get a grip on the ESAS......

How old is this shallow part of the arctic ocean and how long has carbon been trapped underneath the subsea permafrost that is now perforated and leaking bubbles of methane.
Is there a new guestimate of the total stored to be released and the rate of release per year?

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casest ... tic-shelf/

Old news from end 2013.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/20 ... e-mystery/

A recent third-party study, also referenced in the aforementioned Arctic News article d/d June 10th, concluded that at 1200 ppm atmospheric CO2 global heating cranks up by 8°C, or 14.4°F, within a decade. (Source: Arctic News d/d June 10, 2019). Truth be known, that scenario is not problematic, it’s catastrophic and too far along to be classified as a problem. After all, problems can be fixed; catastrophes are fatal.

According to Shakhova’s research, as referenced in Geosciences/ 2019: “Releases could potentially increase by 3–5 orders of magnitude, considering the sheer amount of CH4 preserved within the shallow ESAS seabed deposits and the documented thawing rates of subsea permafrost reported recently. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the ESAS permafrost–hydrates system, which is largely unfamiliar to scientists,” Ibid. (Side note: 3 orders of magnitude is equivalent to 1,000, i.e., a large methane release.)

More from Shakhova: “Here we present results of the first comprehensive scientific re-drilling to show that subsea permafrost in the near-shore zone of the ESAS has a downward movement of the ice-bonded permafrost table of ~14 cm (6 inches) year over the past 31–32 years… However, recent studies show that in some areas very recently submerged permafrost is close to or has already reached the thaw point,” Ibid.

Then summer 2020, we had a 10 degrees C. average anomaly of Siberian heat.

Linky to the actual paper:

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/9/6/251/htm

The ESAS is the most extensive (2.1 × 106 km2) continental shelf in the World Ocean (WO); the ESAS is composed of the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea, and the Russian part of the Chukchi Sea. Because of its shallowness (mean depth is ~50 m, Figure 1a) and location, the ESAS has a unique climatological history; due to sea level variations caused by glaciation in cold climate epochs or by glacier melt during warm epochs, the entire area of the ESAS is periodically subjected to dry (terrestrial) or to submerged (marine) conditions [23].

The ESAS near-shore zone is highly affected by riverine runoff, which causes significant warming of the shelf water: the mean annual temperature of bottom water is documented to be ˃0 °C and has shown a tendency to increase during the last few decades [20,25]. Heat flux from river bodies can cause formation of thawed sediments deep beneath riverbeds, which could occur below both existing rivers and paleo rivers [26]. Sedimentation on the ESAS is determined by combined input of Arctic river (Lena, Yana, Indigirka, Kolyma) fluvial sediment discharge, coastal sediment input (coastal erosion), and subsea permafrost ‘bottom thermo-abrasion’ [27,28]. Sedimentation flow varies significantly, and sedimentation rates vary by orders of spatial and temporal magnitude throughout the year; it was suggested that ˃20 Tg of terrigenous organic carbon (Corg) is delivered to the ESAS each year [29]. Sedimentary basins on the ESAS, which result from these high levels of sedimentation, are predicted to reach up to 15 km in thickness (Figure 2), providing favorable conditions for CH4 production in the seabed [30]. As a result, large amounts of CH4 accumulate in the ESAS seabed [5].

Up to 15 km thick layer of sediments.

Permafrost (frozen ground with a two-year mean subzero temperature) and associated permafrost-related Arctic hydrates in the ESAS first originated during cold climate periods, when sea level dropped more than 100 m lower than it is today; consequently, the coastline extended as much as 1000 km further north, exposing the entire shelf area above the sea surface and, thus, increasing the area of the Siberian coastal accumulative plain by a factor of five [11]. Exposed to the low Arctic surface temperatures, marine sediments were subjected to a drastic change in their thermal regime—cooling by as much as −28 °C [28]. This led to freezing of the uppermost few hundred meters of sediments; as a result permafrost formed, covering the upper few hundred meters of the sedimentary drape with an impermeable cap (Figure 4b). Additionally, freezing of marine sediments and formation of permafrost caused a change in the P/T conditions of previously originated hydrates; shelf hydrates had existed in marine conditions before the shelf was exposed above the sea. As a result of this drastic change in thermal regime shelf hydrates and gaseous CH4 pre-formed in marine sediments gradually turned into permafrost-related hydrates (or Arctic hydrates), which might exist within the HSZ (conventional Arctic hydrates, Figure 4b) and/or outside the HSZ (inter-pore, porous, and/or relic hydrates, Figure 4b), and which may partially survive freeze–thaw cycles during the alternating glacial–interglacial climate periods [63].
After a sea level rise during the inter-glacial climate epochs by up to 120 m, the entire area of the ESAS was submerged (Figure 4c); the last replacement of the cold epoch by the current warm epoch (Holocene) led to permafrost inundation about 12 kyr ago [66]. Inundated together with permafrost, which became subsea permafrost after inundation, the Arctic hydrates (of terrestrial origin) became the unique shallow Arctic shelf hydrates—that is, hydrates existing where the water depth in the Arctic shelf is <200 m. Since the time of inundation, the permafrost–hydrate system has been forced to undergo transformations determined by drastic changes in the thermal regime of the surrounding environment. Indeed, due to inundation, permafrost, with a mean annual temperature upon origination of around −17 °C, achieved a new mean annual temperature under seawater of ≥−1.8 °C [10,11], reaching a new quasi-stationary temperature equilibrium with the surrounding environment [5,6].

Some gaseous CH4 converted from inter-pore hydrates started its upward movement but the major fraction was converted back to so-called metastable relic hydrates, which accumulate at depths <100 m due to the self-preservation phenomenon. This preservation allowed hydrates to survive during the short thaw cycles until inter-glacial epochs were replaced by glacial epochs. However, in places where geothermal heat flux was greater than on the rest of the shelf area and where permafrost was affected by thermokarst before inundation, partial destabilization of these hydrates was possible, allowing CH4 release to the overlying strata (Figure 4d).
Alternating glacial–interglacial epochs led to repetitive changes in the thermal regime of the permafrost–hydrate system, with corresponding changes in system stability and integrity; such alternations are known to exist within at least four of the last climate cycles, or for ~400 kyrs [1]. During a normal climate cycle, like the Eemian which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago, the interglacial thermal maximum and associated high sea level stand usually lasted 1–2 kyrs, not long enough for permafrost to reach thermal equilibrium with the surrounding environment and start losing its integrity. This enabled the permafrost–hydrate system in the ESAS to return from state (c) to state (b) (Figure 4). The current inter-glacial epoch (Holocene) exhibits continuing warming associated with a long-lasting sea level high stand (˃5 kyrs) [1,71]. Because approaching the phase-transition point (thawing) can only be possible after permafrost reaches an equilibrium state with the surrounding environment, which requires ˃˃1–2 kyrs, the additional duration of the warming effect of seawater makes a critical contribution to the process of permafrost–hydrate system destabilization [5].
As a result, continuing warming causes not only advanced deepening of the IBPT but also thaw-through disintegration of the permafrost body at places such as fault zones, paleo-rivers, areas affected by thaw lakes, freshwater seepages into shelf sediments, and so-called pingo-like features, which provide subsea permafrost with heat and create migration pathways for CH4 that is released from destabilizing hydrates

A return from the state described in panel 4(d) to the state described in panel 4(c) is only possible if warming is replaced by cooling. Returning to the state shown in 4(a) is impossible, because the state shown in 4(a) remains hypothetical—this implies returning to the state when the ESAS was never exposed above sea level and, thus, was never subjected to conditions that allow the existence of specific types of hydrates that exist exclusively in the Arctic shallow shelf region

[Newfie]

Whitefang,

You may find this interesting. It is about some 650,000 year old permafrost in Russia. The surface was disturbed causing a melt which is continuing.

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p08lmh4z ... ing-bigger

[dissident]

Similar localized melting is happening everywhere in the permafrost zone and not just in a few cases with human disturbance. As usual the forecasts for permafrost melt failed to account for various erosion "pathologies".

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/ ... ng-carbon/

[Newfie]

More validation of the awful mess we have created.

https://theconversation.com/worried-abo ... asp-153091

[Plantagenet]

More validation of the awful mess we have created.

https://theconversation.com/worried-abo ... asp-153091

Thats a really good article, Newfie. Recommended to all.....

The scientists made multiple recommendations of what must be done immediately to save the planet.

The top 3 were:

1. abolishing the goal of perpetual economic growth

2. revealing the true cost of products and activities by forcing those who damage the environment to pay for its restoration, such as through carbon pricing

3. rapidly eliminating fossil fuels

And, of course, none of that is going to happen anytime soon. Obama did nothing and Trump did nothing and now Joe Biden will do nothing. Joe Biden is all about keeping economic growth going, he opposes a carbon tax, and he says he wants to eliminate fossil fuel.... by 2050......30 years from now, in other words it ain't gonna happen on Joe Biden's watch.

So enjoy every beautiful day.

Enjoy our beautiful planet.

It will be sad when everything collapses, but we can still have a lot of fun watching the whole system go down, thanks to the lies and incompetence of our putative leaders.

Cheers!

[mmasters]

More validation of the awful mess we have created.

https://theconversation.com/worried-abo ... asp-153091

Thats a really good article, Newfie. Recommended to all.....

The scientists made multiple recommendations of what must be done immediately to save the planet.

The top 3 were:

1. abolishing the goal of perpetual economic growth

2. revealing the true cost of products and activities by forcing those who damage the environment to pay for its restoration, such as through carbon pricing

3. rapidly eliminating fossil fuels

And, of course, none of that is going to happen anytime soon. Obama did nothing and Trump did nothing and now Joe Biden will do nothing. Joe Biden is all about keeping economic growth going, he opposes a carbon tax, and he says he wants to eliminate fossil fuel.... by 2050......30 years from now, in other words it ain't gonna happen on Joe Biden's watch.

So enjoy every beautiful day.

Enjoy our beautiful planet.

It will be sad when everything collapses, but we can still have a lot of fun watching the whole system go down, thanks to the lies and incompetence of our putative leaders.

Cheers!

I agree GW is another upcoming crisis. But this one the looney left has raved enough about that sadly they will probably get the ball in their court when it manifests and, well... good luck with that LOL. Best start working now on a good setup to bug out and insulate yourself from the soon to be raving hordes.

[Plantagenet]

I agree GW is another upcoming crisis. But this one the looney left has raved enough about that sadly they will probably get the ball in their court when it manifests and, well... good luck with that LOL. Best start working now on a good setup to bug out and insulate yourself from the soon to be raving hordes.

Its already happening in California where looney left Gov. Gavin Newsome is facing a strong recall movement because of his incompetence in dealing with global warming and forest fires, as well as his terrible job on the covid virus.

Cheers!

[suxs]

Plantagenet-

Here's another example in which you are so eager to denigrate the other side that you fabricate information that is easily fact-checked.

Joe Biden will do nothing... Joe Biden opposes a carbon tax. --Plantagenet--

First a quote from President-elect Biden himself on 09/02:

Biden: I Would Support a Carbon Tax .... Sep 02, 2019 · During Wednesday’s CNN Climate Town Hall, Vice President Joe Biden stated that he would support a carbon tax.

Per RedGREENandBlue 12/21/2020:

Incoming Biden Administration officials support putting a price on carbon.

As President-elect Joe Biden gears up to take office in January, he’s promised to take swift action on the climate crisis and push a bold climate agenda. In recent weeks, he has announced several of his initial nominations for positions within his cabinet. Here at CCL, we’re excited to see that Mr. Biden's picks strongly support putting a price on carbon.

[Plantagenet]

First a quote from President-elect Biden himself on 09/02:

Biden: I Would Support a Carbon Tax .... Sep 02, 2019 · During Wednesday’s CNN Climate Town Hall, Vice President Joe Biden stated that he would support a carbon tax.

Per RedGREENandBlue 12/21/2020:

Incoming Biden Administration officials support putting a price on carbon.

As President-elect Joe Biden gears up to take office in January, he’s promised to take swift action on the climate crisis and push a bold climate agenda. In recent weeks, he has announced several of his initial nominations for positions within his cabinet. Here at CCL, we’re excited to see that Mr. Biden's picks strongly support putting a price on carbon.

Thanks for that information, sux. Thats good news, maybe, that Joe Biden once said he would support a carbon tax. I guess that means if a carbon tax magically appears, Joe Biden will support it.

But back here in the real world is Joe Biden actually proposing to institute a carbon tax himself? The answer to that is clearly no.

There's a lesson to be learned here...... and that is that the Ds say many nice things but sometimes their actions don't match their words.

The real question here is what Joe Biden will actually do when he becomes President.

AND, if you go to Joe Biden's own web site and examine Joe Biden's own climate plan.....where he lays out what his he is going to support when he becomes President....THERE IS NO MENTION OF A CARBON TAX.

joebiden.com-Biden's-climate-plan-does-not-include-a-carbon-tax

Yes...thats right.

Joe Biden's own climate plan DOES NOT INCLUDE A CARBON TAX.

So....what I said above is 100% right.

I hate to break it to you, sux, but politicians lie all the time. Trump lied to you and Biden is lying to you as well.. Its just how it is.


Joe apparently was lying to the CNN town hall audience, because when you examine Joe Biden's own climate plan, written out in black and white on Joe Biden's own website....IT DOES'T INCLUDE A CARBON TAX.

Personally, I think a CARBON TAX would be the simplest and most direct way to reduce carbon emissions, and I'd really to see the Ds institute a carbon tax. I'd like to see Joe Biden ADD A CARBON TAX to the list of steps that he intends to take to fight climate change and make it legislative priority for his administration. It would be very very easy for the Ds to institute a carbon tax now that they control both houses of Congress and the White House. But so far there is no sign that Biden and the Ds are going to do that.

Cheers!

[suxs]

The real question here is what Joe Biden will actually do when he becomes President.

Why, then, do you make definitive statements of fact when according to your second post you have no idea what will happen? The answer is all too obvious. And an opinion piece published by a highly partisan web site does not pass the smell test for evidence.

It's called being slippery.

[Plantagenet]

Why ... do you make definitive statements of fact....

Because the facts are clear, sux.

Joe Biden's climate plan is laid out at his website and Joe Biden's own climate plan doesn't include any mention of a carbon tax. Thats a fact.

an opinion piece published by a highly partisan web site does not pass the smell test for evidence.

Joe Biden's own website...JoeBIden.com...... is not an "opinion piece" as you are falsely claiming.

Joe Biden's own website is where Joe Biden himself says he is presenting the details of his plans and proposals.

IMHO its silly for you to pretend that Joe Biden's own positions as laid out at his own website...JoeBiden.com..... don't constitute "evidence" of Joe Biden's positions.


Joe Biden says go to JoeBiden.com to find out his positions.....this means you sux.

Cheers!