One symptom of GW to think about.?

Question

Given the plethora of theories abounding on the internet, can we look at just one symptom and analyze it more deeply than is usually seen?

One common predicted consequence is the warming and thawing of the permafrost and tundra regions of Russia and Canada. The stated consequence of this is a release of the CO2 trapped in the soil in these regions. That's fine, but wouldn't there be an off-setting absorption of CO2 from the increased vegetation growing as a result of the thaw? And would this increase negate or even outweigh the release from the thaw? Why don't you see this discussed more?

Just one little piece of the puzzle to ponder. There's plenty more where that came from.

Answer 1

The fact is that the increased growth of vegetation cannot make up for the increased CO2, particularly in that region.  Here's one reason why.

Note that the adverse effects of global warming are severe, even with a 2-3 degree C rise.  Winter isn't going away, nor will sunshine be adequate at those high latitudes, for plant growth.  It is well understood that planting trees at high latitudes is ineffective in removing CO2, especially if dark trees block radiation from light snow during the winter.

Also, the effect of increased CO2 on plant life is expected to be pretty small.  Enough perhaps to disrupt ecosystems (some plants like more CO2 than others), but nowhere near enough to say, increase tree density by 50%.

By the way the problem that people are most worried about is a release of trapped methane from that soil, a far more potent greenhouse gas.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=2...

EDIT - I generally agree that this problem is unproven, but note that the amount of methane is extremely uncertain, and there's a risk.   This is not an issue I hang my hat on (note "by the way"), but your idea that increased plant life will fix any problems that arise is not justified.

Answer 2

That's interesting.

It seems researchers are only interested in trying proving the existance of AGW, rather than researching with an open mind.  Also gloom and doom tends to interest some people.

Answer 3

How wise of your thinking :) I had never thought about it in that matter. Yes, vegetation does absorb the CO2 that we and other animals give off. I've heard reports that the rainforests being cut down has had a huge effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Good thinking!

Answer 4

Thanks for bringing that up mate.  It shows some deep thinking.  My query however is on the sequestration of CO2 that you hope will be done by 'vegetation' that grows after the thawing.  It is perfectly understood, the role of vegetation in taking up carbon dioxide.  the real issue really comes whether a primary forest can establish itself in those parts of Russia if the thawing is to take place.  What would be the chemistry of the soils and other physical properties?  I think there is a whole lot more than just a forest establishing itself after the thawing of ice.

That's my line of thinking

Answer 5

Also, the open sea will absorb carbon like an ice covered sea wont.  This will boost the lowest level of the food chain in the arctic.

The co2 released from the soil would be insignificant because the majority of the carbon is still locked up in the soil as a solid, and it isnt going anywhere.

Also, ask yourself why there is soil up there anyways...  Obviously it hasnt been frozen forever because plants created the soil by dying/decaying in the first place.  So permafrost, is really only temporafrost.  You know, I have NEVER seen a AGW proponent recognize this fact.  If there is soil to be called permaforst in the first place, doesnt that indicate that it WASNT frozen at some point, allowing the plant material to grow there in the first place?

Methane breaks down via UV rays when its in the atmosphere.  I think I read it lasts about 300 years tops?  So this alone tells you that we already know that methane must be constantly emitted, or else it would slowly disappear.

Answer 6

Methane gas is about 10 times worse than co2. Methane gas has been released periodically throughout history causing warming. The Earth needs to do this in order to survive. Methane gas doesn't just come from permafrost, it also is released from the sea floor, sometimes pockets of it are stored up for along time and released all at once. This could be why we're having warming now. It's a big ocean !

Answer 7

The thing is, it wasn't the CO2 people were worrying about escaping if the permafrost melted from these regions, it's the Methane. They feel if the Methane escapes the permafrost it will trigger even more warming.

But you are correct in the fact that any CO2 that escapes would be absorbed by the resulting vegetation.

Answer 8

o.k. i`m thinking

Answer 9

Some good answers already.  The answer to your question is that no, increased vegetation would not offset the carbon release from bogs beneath permafrost for various reasons.

1) If the bogs remain wet, as scientists observe is currently the case, the carbon is emitted as methane, which is a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than CO2.

2) Vegetation takes time to grow.

3) In northern latitudes where there is a lot of snow/ice, the ground is very reflective.  If you have a significant amount of vegetation growth, it will absorb sunlight, causing warming.

4) Just because permafrost is able to melt doesn't mean the climate in the area will be ideal for vegetation.  We're still talking about Siberia.

5) There is an absolutely immense amount of carbon trapped in the bogs below the permafrost.  Even ignoring the previous points, it would take a ton of vegetation to offset this release.

Answer 10

These are called feedback mechanisms (plants absorbing and permafrost emitting CO2) and has been considered in predictions since the late 1980s at least.

The CO2 produced by the thawing would not be a huge problem if we were not pulling CO2 out of the ground in the for fossil fuels and emitting it back into the environment.  The carbon cycle is out of balance. At the same time we are pumping extra CO2 into the air, we are reducing the ability of the environment to absorb CO2 by changing the landscape.  The system is going to adjust and this is causing climate change.

I was associated with a team in the late 1980's that looked at using forests to absorb the CO2 emitted.  At that time, the US could not possibly grow enough forest to offset the amount of CO2 put into the air.  We are not talking by a little.  We are talking orders of magnitude! The world cannot offset GW by planting trees alone. There is no magic bullet to fix the problem.  It will take multiple paths to arrive at a solution that slows the rate of change.

The ocean covers most of the earth and absorbs most of the CO2, but there is still a gap about were the CO2 is stored in the ocean.  I heard over the past few weeks NASA launched a new satellite to attempt to track were the CO2 goes.  Hopefully, this will provide some good insights to help us manage the problem.

Short answer is No - -the growth does not completely absorb the amount of CO2 emitted.  Not enough plant life. To much CO2 is left in the atmosphere and will cause warming.

Methane - lots of sources.  Ocean, permafrost, rice fields (most of the terrestrial production I thin), ruminants (cattle and such).  Another gas that is important is NO2 (almost any combustion but mostly from cars in the US).  Lots of trace gases.  Biggest gas is WATER VAPOR.  Problem is syneristic effects between trace gases and water vapor.  Read the IPCC reports!  The have one for the science behind GW, one for the ecosystem effects, one for the economic effects.  There is a summary for policy makers that is easier to read.  These mechanisms have been considered for decades.