Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Permafrost Melt Soon Irreversible Without Major Fossil Fuel Cuts
UXBRIDGE - Thawing permafrost is threatening to overwhelm attempts to keep the planet from getting too hot for human survival.
Ice melts in the source region of China's Yellow River outside of Maduo on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau, known as the "Roof of the World", in 2010. Global warming could cause up to 60 percent of the world's permafrost to thaw by 2200 and release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere that would further speed up climate change, a study released Wednesday warned.
Without major reductions in the use of fossil fuels, as much as two-thirds of the world's gigantic storehouse of frozen carbon could be released, a new study reported. That would push global temperatures several degrees higher, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable.
Once the Arctic gets warm enough, the carbon and methane emissions from thawing permafrost will kick-start a feedback that will amplify the current warming rate, says Kevin Schaefer, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. That will likely be irreversible.
And we're less than 20 years from this tipping point. Schaefer prefers to use the term "starting point" for when the 13 million square kilometres of permafrost in Alaska, Canada, Siberia and parts of Europe becomes a major new source of carbon emissions.
"Our model projects a starting point 15 to 20 years from now," Schaefer told IPS.
The model used a 'middle of the road' scenario with less fossil fuel use than at present. Even at that rate, it found that between 29 and 60 percent of the world's permafrost will thaw, releasing an extra 190 gigatonnes of carbon by 2200. The study is the first to quantify when and how much carbon will be released and was published this week in the meteorological journal Tellus.
"The amount of carbon released is equivalent to half the amount of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age," Schaefer said.
The additional carbon from permafrost would increase the average temperatures in the Arctic by eight to 10 degrees C, the study reported. Not only would this utterly transform the Arctic, it would also increase the planet's average temperature by about three degrees C, agrees Schaefer.
And this increase would be on top of the three to six degrees C from continuing to burn fossil fuels over the next 100 years. The Earth's normal average temperature is 14C, so heating up the entire planet another six to nine degrees C would be like increasing our body temperatures from the normal 37C to a deadly fever of 53 to 60 degrees C.
As catastrophic as all this is, Schaefer acknowledges his study underestimates what is likely to happen. The model does not measure methane releases, which are 40 times as potent in terms of warming as carbon. Methane could have a big impact on temperatures in the short term, he says.
"There would be a lot of methane emissions. We're working on estimating those right now," he said.
The model also does not include emissions from the large region of underwater permafrost. IPS previously reported that an estimated eight million tonnes of methane emissions are bubbling to the surface from the shallow East Siberian Arctic shelf every year.
If just one percent of the Arctic undersea methane (also called methane hydrates) reaches the atmosphere, it could quadruple the amount of methane currently in the atmosphere, Vladimir Romanovsky of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks previously told IPS.
Nor does the model account for a process called thermokarst erosion, acknowledges Schaefer. This is a widely observed process where meltwater erodes the permafrost and exposes it to warmer temperatures and speeding up the thaw. "We can't model that yet but it could contribute to major releases of carbon and methane," he said.
None of this has been taken into account by politicians and policy makers looking to cut humanity's carbon emissions with the agreed on target of keeping global temperatures below two degrees C.
Nor is there a wide appreciation for the fact there is no 'reverse gear'. Even if all fossil fuel use stopped today, global temperatures would continue to rise and permafrost would thaw for another 20 to 30 years, Schaefer estimates. And once the permafrost carbon is released, "there is no way to put it back into the permafrost".
Even if there was a way to lower the Earth's human-induced fever, it would take a century or more for thawed permafrost to reform, he said.
Permafrost has been warming and thawing since the 1980s. A 2009 study reported that the southernmost permafrost limit had retreated 130 kilometres over the past 50 years in Quebec's James Bay region. The major loss of sea ice in the Arctic allows the Arctic Ocean to become much warmer, which in turn has increased temperatures of coastal regions an average of three to five degrees C warmer than 30 years ago.
More ominously, large parts of the eastern Arctic were 21C higher above normal for a month in the dead of winter this year, as previously reported by IPS.
However, while on the edge of a most dangerous precipice, there is a safer path available. A new energy analysis demonstrates that fossil fuel energy could be virtually phased out by 2050 while offering comfortable lifestyles for all. The Energy Report by Ecofys, a leading energy consulting firm in the Netherlands, shows that humanity could meet 95 percent of energy needs with renewables utilising today's technologies.
"The Energy Report shows that in four decades we can have a world of vibrant economies and societies powered entirely by clean, cheap and renewable energy and with a vastly improved quality of life," said WWF Director General Jim Leape.
WWF worked on the report with Ecofys.
"The report is more than a scenario – it's a call for action. We can achieve a cleaner, renewable future, but we must start now," Leape said in a statement.

79 Comments so far
Show AllBINGO!
"Fossil fuel energy could be virtually phased out by 2050 while offering comfortable lifestyles for all."
Not unless more people believe this is a real situation than do so today. To transform the entire global industrial complex into something that used other than fossil fuel while keeping supplies of necessities available would have to be a national project with a World War II type mobilization.
Right now I don't see even the beginnings of something like that happening, but I guess there's still time. This article says we have 20 years. I suspect less.
I'm sure Goldman Sachs is busy trying to find a way to declare permafrost as a commodity so they can bundle derivatives on permafrost futures, sell them ....
And then short them.
The problem is the inherent inability of capitalism to define the problem. Destroy capitalism, demonize and punish selfish behavior and reward sustainable, empathic and humane behavior and we live. Celebrate kind, giving, altruistic, benevolent, charitable, chivalrous, denying, devoted, disinterested, extroverted, generous, helpful, humanitarian, incorruptible, indulgent, liberal, loving, magnanimous, noble, open-handed, self-effacing, self-forgetting, self-sacrificing, selfless behavior and we will thrive along with the rest of the planet.
Otherwise we ALL die and take thousands of other species with us.
Good thoughts, but you are ignoring the fact that we are a predator species. Even among predators, we are one of very few that kills for pleasure. And not only are we the best predators, but we are also the richest prey, which explains diseased social orders like capitalism. Nothing will be done to address this problem, except extinction.
Goldman Sachs will then short the human race, and do all it can to make that bet pay off. The people who work there just can't help themselves.
agelbert, fiendishly funny and heinously accurate. But just think. If they get caught our generous SEC will only fine them for two weeks of profits. Not a bad way to make a living.
Laughed my head off.
Thanks.
I think, however, that what Goldman Sachs and their SEC helpers do is 'make a dying' instead of 'make a living'.
At any rate, I'm going to enjoy watching the markets crash all over the world starting tomorrow because of the Lybian collapse. The oil goons are losing their butt on that one. Sure, they'll try to make us pay but they will suffer mightily because of the demise of their Lybian dictatorship.
Commodities markets will not crash; they will soar.
I feel like the Na' vi
"The American Way of Life is not negotiable." G. H. W. Bush at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.
And with the rest of the developing world doing their their best to emulate the American Way of Life, we are all in seriously deep shit.
(We indigenous folks are notorious for finding the silver lining....) ;-)
We could but we won't. Being that corporations are soulless persons, their mission is always focused on the next quarter's bottom line. And that does not include the survival of humans. After all, we'll still be here for the next quarter boosting their profits - for now.
I don't expect to see this story anywhere in the corporate Ministry of Propaganda AKA MSM.
Most appalling is the part about all the variables that have not been factored in, and also that so far, the rate of change has always exceeded projections, due to unforeseen feedback loops showing up. I am sure they will continue to do so. This is just a continuation of projections being revised to faster and more severe as they have been for the past 10 years. And now instead of Nero George fiddling while Rome burns, we have Nero Obama whose priority above all else is clearly his reelection. Paul Wellstone was willing to sacrifice his reelection to do the right thing. It cost him his life instead. So I could understand if Obama is just a coward, but his behavior goes beyond self preservation to drooling over corporate campaign cash.
It would be so characteristic of the human race to not even notice it is headed for a cliff until it is already falling.
I agree. One obvious problem with increasing private power is that private entities, particularly corporations, are structured to focus on the short term, as they will not be around for the long term if they do not focus on the short term. Governments are the proper entities to focus on the long term, and, with government power waning, there will not be an appropriate amount of concern for the long term.
I wonder who's going to be around to collect that final quarter's profits? Will the final tally just be blinking on a computer screen somewhere with nobody around to see what they "earned" as winds and paper fly down the deserted Wall Street?
Thanks for that little bit of doomer imagery...
As Lovelock has said, he's more pessimistic than the computer modelers because he's not trying to figure out how to model what's going on, he's just looking out the window and watching it happen.
So if the modelers say we have 20 years, we probably have only 10.
If that. I think we'll be lucky to make as far as the Maya D-day 12/21/12.
Mairead wrote:
.....As Lovelock has said, he's more pessimistic than the computer modelers because he's not trying to figure out how to model what's going on, he's just looking out the window and watching it happen.....
Yes. That, along with following the literature for the last ten+ years does tend to get it through.
It is sad that Gaia, to rid herself of the brain cancer that is humanity, will have to destroy most of the beautiful species that have evolved despite us.
Eventually, something else will evolve. Perhaps we will go from the "planet of the apes" to the planet of the roaches, or something similar. The organisms that grow next to volcanic vents in the deeps are evolving in conditions similar to that on Venus. Perhaps that is the future.
Our home is a "Backyard Habitat" and home to squirrels, birds, raccoons, deer, rabbits, etc. The bees seem to be gone. Other critters are becoming scarce. I think we have just about "greeded" ourselves off the planet.
Of course there is one simple solution -- get rid of public employee unions. Not only have they ballooned our deficit, off-shored our jobs, destroyed our economy, increased the obesity rate, propped up communist dictators like Hugo Chavez while undermining our good democratic friends like Mubarak, and caused catastrophic failure in US foreign wars, they undoubtedly caused global warming. Just get rid of public employee unions, and the problem will solve itself.
Good try, Kivals, but if we get rid of the public employees unions, we will just have to find another scapegoat. So what's next? Gas chambers for all those lazy prisoners sucking up our tax dollars?
Haven't seen you around much lately. I've been around, just not posting much.
Kathy
reminds me of the 'when you're a jew and they come for you' etc...
If you are a teacher we got you by the proverbials. mercy
Kathy, I haven't come on too much lately (except maybe to put in a few quips) as I have been busy with work. When I saw your comment here I was thinking that I had not seen any from you recently. I really enjoy your comments because I almost always agree with them.
Nice post. I would not have thought there was a laugh in any of this discussion, but you did it. a belly laugh. [If a bit bitter, but then - I'm Irish]. Thanks, Kivals.
A 20-year estimate of time available is over-optimistic; and given the inaction we've seen since the release of James Burke's "After the Warming" in 1989, it seems the probability of any effective action to counter global warming (or climate change, if you prefer) is near zero.
Do not trust the current Democratic Party to do anything in this regard.
Register Green, vote the Reds and Blues out of office.
You may have something there readbetweenthe_lines! Perhaps the old joke of having oceanfront property in Arizona isn't so far off after all?
I can't say anything but BFS MAIAS...horse pucky. It was OVER, 20 years AGO folks. We aren't facing 90 years before the disasters...They couched those words in the fluffy pillow stuffing. We don't have 20 more years. They said we had 20 years. 20 years back. 1990 or so someone said we had 20 years to stop it or it would spiral out of control.
WELL IT IS. And they aren't now willing to tell us how really bad it is. If you didn't get a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach when the entire US was covered with a hurricane snow storm last month, while the Aussies were facing down a devastating hurricane, and the Amazon drought killed even more trees...my God. Scientists need to start now to teach and explain exactly what is going to happen and how to be prepared for it. If you think the gov is going to rescue you, just remember Katrina.
I'm not quite ready to throw up my hands: Lovelock said we can still save ourselves...if we act *SOON*. It's the politicians and the rest of the ruling class that's hellbent on killing us all. Solve that problem and we're still in with a good chance.
Good to see you post, Mairead. Maybe I just missed others elsewhere. I don't think we have anywhere close to 20 years but I have to try anyway, since I'm not a nihilist.
How to be prepared for it: Learn to breathe methane.
Waddya bet some genius doesn't come up with a plan to capture the escaping methane & burn it as a fuel. A Win-Win! Even if it can't or won't work, it will keep "Hope" alive, and Halliburton swimming in contracts.
Good try, madman. But it's not exactly like oil, in a reservoir.
I suppose after we've been killed off by our methane atmosphere, it will ignite and scorch this planet clean. Hey, do you think that's what happened on Mars? You know, the dry red planet with no atmosphere? Humanity is looking like a plague that's doomed to repeat it's mistakes until there's nowhere left to go.
In addition to Mars, I would look to Venus as another possible example of where we are headed. Venus is a nice example of a "greenhouse effect" that went totally out of control: I understand it has a dense atmosphere that consists primarily of methane, and the temperature there is a comfortable 900 F! Definitely something to look forward to;-)
Could it be that the Koch brothers first did in Venus and now are doing in the Earth? Is Mars next?
Cannot stop laughing.
I'd be happy just to place tiny solar-powered spark creators over the 10,000 largest methane outlets. We'd see lots of flame but there would be less methane in the atmosphere, and a bit less warming.
Wouldn't the burning methane use up a lot of the atmospheric oxygen as well as add a lot more heat?
Actually, it would be nice if we could burn methane as fuel, if there were no other knock-on effects. (We do, when we burn natural gas, but fracking is employed in extracting some natural gas, which should make nobody happy.)
For what it's worth: burning methane would remove methane from the atmosphere, replacing it with carbon dioxide, which has less of a greenhouse effect than methane, although CO2 remains in the earth's atmosphere longer than methane does. And methane produces more energy per CO2 produced when compared with other hydrocarbons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
"...burning methane would remove methane from the atmosphere, replacing it with carbon dioxide, which has less of a greenhouse effect than methane, although CO2 remains in the earth's atmosphere longer than methane does."
Good point.
I sure as hell hope my perspective is wrong, but it looks like millions will need to die including the super wealthy, politically elite before anything will really change.Kind of reminds me of the Egyptian Pharoah, in the Bible, that kept refusing to budge until it was too late and his own son dies from the plagues. That could be a metaphor for the future!
Paul Revere, I would guess more than millions. But we can count on the super wealthy being the last to go.
The last to go will be those humans with great resilience, skills, and strength, probably in a tribal affiliation. Those are not typically features of the super wealthy, who have been coddled and looked-after their entire lives. No, they will be some of the first to go, probably by their own hands.
It's funny that I just watched the BBC production of Dickens' Little Dorrit. It is a story that bears increasing relevance to society today, vis-a-vis debt and enslavement, but I found it interesting that the banker of the wealthy ends up committing suicide rather than facing the fraud he perpetrated to the wealthy and well-connected.
Yeah, I can see it now, the super wealthy,elite living in underground silos and still in denial!
The super wealthy will have nice places to live, and plenty of food to eat. that is why they don't give a shit what happens. They will be taken care of. their pick of prime real estate anywhere they want. why do you think there has been this massive transfer of wealth lately?
Australia does not mind a climate cure,
so long as all keep buying its coal.
return the invested public billions on infrastructure,
for which politicians sold their soul.
Built ports, roads and rail, to mine the black carbon ore,
long term mining profits are their dearest goal.
Meanwhile once frozen tundra have started to thaw.
One day Santa Claus will bring some magical carbon tech,
even though oxidised carbon weighs and fills much more,
So coal power stations do not assist the planet wreck,
believing it can be captured, frozen and pumped into an empty coal store.
For that there will be much more coal required to burn,
to power the pumps, and refridgeration energy galore.
Thinking of all the money coal share owners will personally earn
while the rest of us go to hell inside the furnace front door.
If instead the money had more more wisely spent,
to capture a continental-sized solar irradience,
Australia might have helped the world to repent,
and proved some right to the title of sapience.
But the ruling classes are stocked by free market clones,
who believe in personal benefit over mateship sense,
controlled by spreadsheet zombies of mining zones
I remember reading one of the IPCC reports years ago, and I noticed that what was being ignored in the models counted for nothing. The range of outcomes proposed only assumed worst-case projections for the variables in their models. And in particular, they ignored the effects of methane, and the positive feedback cycle that has been initiated through the burning of fossil fuels.
I think it is rather difficult to believe the claim that the "starting point" for this positive feedback cycle is 15 years out, given that the methane feedback cycle is positive, just as the carbon release from decomposing permafrost. So they will both reinforce one another, and in fact, there are already areas of the ocean and newly formed "lakes" in Siberia and Alaska that are literally bubbling methane out of the ground. This is the initial leak in the dam, and should be a huge red flashing warning sign. It is a signal of humanity's soon-to-arrive black swan event and we ignore it at our peril.
What we are now witnessing, and will continue to witness over the coming years, is the destruction not of the planet, or of life itself, but the destruction of the conditions necessary for human life to exist on the planet.
If we allow the bullies of the world to do as they please....oh, wait, they have been doing as they please. So what type of revolution will it take to turn things around, or at least get it started? This planet has taken about all she's gonna take, it seems.
The Dems (my party-at least for right now) ain't gonna get it done, friends. I wish I had an answer.
It is up to every one of us. We can't not protest and redress. We didn't rollover. That would give them what they expect. Doing what they don't expect will make them nervous and back off. Once they are backed off, we can have room to expose the crooks and liars. Once they realize we expect them to abide by the law DO NO HARM, maybe we will have some peace.
I am wondering what happens to the melting ice that raises the water that fills the cracks that shift with pressure causing earthquakes as the fire rim goes, so goes Yellowstone. As Captain Jack said, "Not Good!"
I believe the Yellowstone Caldera is a ticking time bomb that, when it erupts, will make Mt. St. Helens look like a firecracker.