
Climate change has turned permafrost into a carbon emitter - asaegyn
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/permafrost-climate-change-1.5330144
======
Hongwei
And it's quite scary if you consider the amount of methane stored in Siberia
and northern Canada.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)

~~~
hannob
I've been trying to read up a bit on the methane clathrate "bomb" or "gun"
theory lately, it seems to be popular among some fringe "we're all gonna die
anyway" communities. Though my impression was that the vast majority of
climate scientists don't consider it to be a very plausible threat [1]. It is
based on some real scientific publications, but as far as I can tell in the
realm of "very implausible theory".

There is definitely a concern about multiple feedback loops involving methane
from clathrates, permafrost and also wetlands. There's also considerable
uncertainty about the origin of methane emissions. But as far as I can tell
the methane "bomb" theory shouldn't be our major concern.

[1]
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic...](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-
and-american-methane-in-context/)

------
blueyes
I believe this same dynamic will apply to the oceans as they warm. They're
like a can of Coke. Heat it up and the carbonation goes away. It's a
horrifying positive feedback loop of global warming.

~~~
the_gastropod
And then the whole melting of sea ice thing. Sea ice is pretty much the
whitest/most reflective surface on the planet. It then melts into the
darkest/most absorbent surface on the planet.

Are there any stabilizing forces we know about? I only ever hear about these
types of positive feedback loops, and it scares the hell out of me.

~~~
rgbrenner
Here are a few:

increased temp > increased evaporation > increased cloud coverage which
reflects more sunlight

increased co2 > increased tree growth

increased co2 > increased algae, plankton growth to absorb co2... other marine
animals will also feed on these, increasing their mass, and when they die,
they'll sink to the bottom, where they'll mostly remain.

increased co2 > increased diffusion into seawater.. clams, oysters, etc
combine this carbon with calcium to produce shells.. and when they die, they
accumulate on the sea floor eventually turning into rock.

Unfortunately, the fact that co2 in the atmosphere is growing indicates we're
overwhelming these.. I take zero comfort in the fact that these exists.. it
actually makes me nervous because once they reach their maximum, co2 will
start growing even more rapidly.. and then it'll be so much worse.

~~~
pdonis
_> increased evaporation > increased cloud coverage which reflects more
sunlight_

Also increased evaporation > increased latent heat transport to upper
atmosphere where it can more easily escape to space. According to the numbers
in Kiehl & Trenberth's global energy budget, total latent heat transport is
about 80 W/m^2, which means a 5 percent increase in it would entirely cancel
out the increased radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. This is a negative
feedback that I don't see discussed much at all.

 _> the fact that co2 in the atmosphere is growing indicates we're
overwhelming these_

No, it doesn't, it just indicates different timescales for CO2 emissions vs.
uptake.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
>> the fact that co2 in the atmosphere is growing indicates we're overwhelming
these

>No, it doesn't, it just indicates different timescales for CO2 emissions vs.
uptake.

It's not clear to me what the distinction is you're trying to make here? If
the time scale for emissions vs. uptake is different such that emissions are
exceeding uptake capacity _due to_ the different timescales, isn't the
previous comment correct?

~~~
pdonis
_> It's not clear to me what the distinction is you're trying to make here?_

If the uptake timescale is longer, uptake will catch up to emissions over time
(I realize I didn't make that sufficiently clear in my previous post), so CO2
growth does not indicate that uptake has reached "maximum", which is what the
post I responded to was claiming.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
If uptake capacity is decreasing and CO2 emissions are increasing, which I'm
lead to believe is the case, and atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels are
increasing, which I'm also lead to believe the case...

Then I don't understand where you're coming from?

~~~
pdonis
_> If uptake capacity is decreasing_

I never said that, and I don't think it's true. The timescale I was referring
to is the timescale for uptake capacity to _respond_ to a change in CO2
levels. For example, trees grow and reproduce more slowly than CO2 levels have
been changing, so the increase in uptake from tree growth and reproduction
takes some time to respond to an increase in CO2. But that doesn't mean it
_never_ responds. It does; uptake capacity does increase.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Hmmmm, I just assumed global CO2 update capacity is decreasing, but I don't
have any evidence I can link to immediately to support that.

This indicates to me I probably need to go away and do some research.

Thanks for bringing this assumption to my attention.

------
dr_dshiv
I'm really curious about marine cloudseeding as a potential mitigator to
permafrost melt. Essentially, high-efficiency saltwater aerosolization to
create nuclei for cloud formation...

Here is a 2019 paper on the critical role of clouds in arctic cooling
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44155-w#Sec7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44155-w#Sec7)

~~~
nkingsy
Anything that doesn’t impact co2 becomes a permanent crutch.

~~~
dr_dshiv
The climate changes with or without human behaviour. Only 8000 years ago, you
could walk from England to Europe! So we need solutions for managing climate
stability, not just cleaning up after humans.

~~~
dunstad
Well, if we fail to develop solutions to clean up after ourselves, we won't
need to worry about climate stability because we'll all be dead. So that's one
way to handle things.

~~~
dr_dshiv
You can hold your breath, I want to explore ways of preventing runaway warming
from melting permafrost.

------
tito
Tropical forests are also now a carbon emitter:

[https://www.carbonbrief.org/tropical-forests-no-longer-
carbo...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/tropical-forests-no-longer-carbon-sinks-
because-human-activity)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
And I read this morning that some expect the Amazon to stop being a rainforest
pretty soon, which would hugely accelerate tree loss.

~~~
samvher
Do you have a source to share on this?

~~~
hnarn
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/23/amazon-r...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/23/amazon-
rainforest-close-to-irreversible-tipping-point)

------
jsnider3
The world would be a much better place if Al Gore had won.

~~~
dependsontheq
Well that’s what most people in the pile and gas industry probably thought
[https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/23/us/oil-and-gas-aid-
bush-b...](https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/23/us/oil-and-gas-aid-bush-bid-for-
president.html)

------
perfunctory
Worth noting that this research is about co2 specifically and not methane.

"... the research didn't measure methane, a greenhouse gas about 30 times more
potent than carbon dioxide that is also released from soil."

------
elorant
Why on earth is there methane trapped in the permafrost?

~~~
favorited
Insane amounts of carbon in the frozen soil. Once thawed, soil microbes
transform it into carbon dioxide and methane.

~~~
ars
Hydrocarbons, not carbon. Basically plants when they rot emit methane AKA
natural gas.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
>> soil microbes transform it into carbon dioxide and methane

> rot

That's what the previous comment just said.

 _Decomposition of plant matter occurs in many stages. It begins with leaching
by water; the most easily lost and soluble carbon compounds are liberated in
this process. Another early process is physical breakup or fragmentation of
the plant material into smaller bits which have greater surface area for
microbial colonization and attack. In smaller dead plants, this process is
largely carried out by the soil invertebrate fauna, whereas in the larger
plants, primarily parasitic life-forms such as insects and fungi play a major
breakdown role and are not assisted by numerous detritivore species._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Plant_decomposit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Plant_decomposition)

~~~
jussij
The OP is just pointing out that the rotting matter is organic in nature,
which means it is made from hydrocarbons and not carbon.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I would have thought that was obvious from the context, fair point though.

Although I think _carbohydrates_ is probably more accurate if we’re talking
about decaying plant matter.

~~~
ars
Fatty acids are not carbohydrates, but are hydrocarbons.

Lignin is also not normally considered a carbohydrate.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Ah yep, that's definitely true. Thanks for point that out.

------
solarwind
Carbon is not a synonym for carbon dioxide.

~~~
asaegyn
As the other comment points out, some of the major GHG's CO2 and CH4 are
comprised of carbon. It is often used as a catch-all.

For example, the news earlier this year about treeplanting, spoke about
removing Carbon from the atmosphere. Typically, the GHG's will be rolled up
into either CO2e (CO2-equivalent) or just C. In the latter case, you often
just have to do some molar math to get the CO2e from C.

------
sunkenvicar
Regardless of the truth of this story and the facts surrounding climate change
Canadian media is not a credible source of information.

The CBC gets $2 BILLION/yr from the Trudeau Liberal government. All other
private news orgs have a hand in a $600 Million/yr pot. For example, the
Toronto Star alone receives $5.2 Million/yr from the Canadian federal
government.

We can all agree this is a bad system apt to produce favourable results for
the Liberals. For example, they won re-election on Monday.

~~~
asaegyn
What a ridiculous comment. The CBC is reporting on this article published in
Nature:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0592-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0592-8)

~~~
sunkenvicar
Bad systems occasionally produce acceptable outcomes. They are still bad
systems. This is common sense.

