http://www.agu.org/...
In the northern permafrost region, organic soils (peatlands) and cryoturbated permafrost-affected mineral soils have the highest mean soil organic carbon contents (32.2–69.6 kg m−2). Here we report a new estimate of the carbon pools in soils of the northern permafrost region, including deeper layers and pools not accounted for in previous analyses. Carbon pools were estimated to be 191.29 Pg for the 0–30 cm depth, 495.80 Pg for the 0–100 cm depth, and 1024.00 Pg for the 0–300 cm depth.
Our estimate for the first meter of soil alone is about
double that reported for this region in previous analyses.
What does it mean, in English?
Why should I care? Why should you care?
Because it might be the epitaph for a livable planet.
Might be a little long for the headstone though.
Reuters 'translates'.
http://www.reuters.com/...
The amount of carbon locked away in frozen soils in the far Northern Hemisphere is double previous estimates and rapid melting could accelerate global warming, a study released on Wednesday says.
Large areas of northern Russia, Canada, Nordic countries and the U.S. state of Alaska have deep layers of frozen soil near the surface called permafrost. Global warming has already triggered rapid melting of the permafrost in some areas, releasing powerful greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
"Massive amounts of carbon stored in frozen soils at high latitudes are increasingly vulnerable to exposure to the atmosphere," said Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project at Australia's state-funded Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
While politicians quibble about how much to tax carbon, passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act and still the pseudo-science of denying wingnuts fills the airwaves and media, we [all of us, even the fools who deny what is happening to our planet] travel down the road.
For all the racket, for an Inconvenient Truth, for Live Earth, nothing has changed. We as a supposedly civilized society travel pretty much down the road, oblivious to the bridge out ahead.
----
http://climateprogress.org/...
"Methane levels rose in 2008 for the second consecutive year after a 10-year lull," CO2 up 2.1 ppm to highest levels on record "despite economic slump"
http://www.nature.com/...
In 2007, scientists scouting the icy waters of the Arctic Ocean began to notice some troubling signs. In about half of their seawater chemistry samples, the concentration of dissolved methane was two to ten times higher than in samples taken during previous years from the same locations. Then, last summer, they observed large rings of gas — sometimes as wide as 30 centimetres in diameter — trapped in ice, as well as methane plumes bubbling to the surface over hundreds of square kilometres of the shallow waters along the Siberian Shelf.
Rings.
How about these rings as seen from the International Space Station in orbit ???
http://www.livescience.com/...
The latest ring patterns included a circle of thin ice with a diameter of 2.7 miles (4.4 km), although the circular patch was becoming a hole of open water. Astronauts spotted similar ice circles in both 1985 and 1994, and satellites have also made sightings over the past years.
This phenomenon is nothing new to the Russian government, which has documented circle sightings on an official Ministry of Natural Resources Web site.
"Interestingly, the government is also warning people that abnormally high emissions of methane may occur in these areas in the summer and fall, posing risks for ships," Moore told LiveScience.
No kidding. Yes, probably methane has been released in these rings before, and it was just noticed - I will admit that is possible. Are the 2.7 mile rings counted on one hand the danger, or are millions of little 30 centimeter rings the threat?
Perhaps it's both.
Methane levels are up.
Here's some scenarios for different levels of permafrost melt.
http://climateprogress.org/...
Note that the B1 scenario is "stabilizing" at 550 ppm atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, but in fact NCAR’s model doesn’t look at the feedback of the CO2 and methane emissions from the tundra loss, which would drive concentrations far higher! So we must avoid 550 at all cost, since the tundra feedback, coupled with the climate-carbon-cycle feedbacks that the IPCC models, could easily take us to the unmitigated catastrophe of 1000 ppm (see Tundra, Part 2: The point of no return).
We are, of course, on pace to exceed the A2 scenario — U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: "Recent observations confirm ... the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised" — 1000 ppm.
-----
I recommend the Center for American Progress Action Fund and the climate blog http://climateprogress.org/ as a great resource of material for future study, for those interested.
Meanwhile:
Politicians and talking heads hector each other about a program that is clearly much too little, much too late. The one issue that will trump everything else, our environment has become not much more than a 'talking point'.
All of us keep traveling down this road, there are no turns. Bridge out. Brick on the accelerator. The various drivers are the nodding off at the wheel. Some passengers in some of the cars are screaming to slow down, find an exit, but their voices barely heard.
Our path is set, even with a new fancy 'National Renewable Portfolio Standard', our fate is sealed.
By the time Congress decides where to set the seating arrangement, the menu, the placemats, and the little cards with the names on them for all the conferences, sub committees and wrangling it will be way too late. Even then, there's the rest of the world to follow.
Planet Earth.
A nice place while it lasted.
Perhaps the epitaph will read:
"No one could have imagined human beings could have ruined the Planet so quickly .. "