I literally cannot keep up with the alarmism today. The warm-mongers must sense they’re on a roll and are churning stuff out for all they’re worth. Now it’s the permafrost:
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 warned.
Using projections based on UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios, scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Colorado estimated that if global warming continues even at a moderate pace, a third of the earth’s permafrost will be gone by 2200.
If the planet warms at a faster pace, the world could see 59 percent of the permanently frozen underground layer of earth thaw out; as that happens, organic matter that has been trapped in the permafrost for tens of millennia will begin to decay, releasing carbon into the atmosphere.
The NSIDC scientists then used a model to predict how much carbon the thawing permafrost would release and came up with the staggering figure of 190 gigatons by 2200.
“That’s the equivalent of half the amount of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age. That’s a lot of carbon,” NSIDC scientist Kevin Schaefer, the lead author of the study, told AFP. [I assume he’s just being sloppy and really means carbon dioxide – Ed]
A gigaton is one billion tons, so 190 gigatons is the equivalent of around a billion tons of carbon entering the atmosphere each year between now and 2200.
Schaefer said carbon that would be released from melting permafrost has to be accounted for in global warming strategies.
“If we don’t account for the release of carbon from permafrost, we’ll overshoot the C02 concentration we are aiming for and will end up with a warmer climate than we want,” he said.
But all was not doom and gloom, he said. [Gee, really? – Ed]
“If we start cutting emissions now [ah, there’s the rub – Ed], we will slow down the thaw rate and push the start of this carbon release off into the future,” he said. (source)
Of course, as it states at the start, this is based on the hugely exaggerated IPCC projections of 6 degrees by 2100 or something. But even if we ignore that, why didn’t all this happen thousands of years ago when temperatures were higher in the Holocene Optimum? Or the MWP? [The MWP didn’t exist, remember? Ask Michael Mann – Ed.] Why didn’t the climate spiral out of control then? Is there something different between temperature rises caused naturally and those allegedly caused by man-made CO2 which makes them melt permafrost faster? So many questions and so few answers.
Australian Climate Madness 
Coooooool! lol
Well now that it is clear that we are all thoroughly doomed I suggest we stop trying to prevent armageddon and just concentrate on having a good time with what little time computer models are programmed to say we have left.
2200 . Sorry I have got a doctors appointment that day.I mean if these scientists got off their collective and found an easy way to transport and store hydrogen we might get somewhere.
In reality it will be the taxes that will destroy us…
Imagine getting paid (no doubt by taxpayers) to come up with what will happen in the year 2200. There is nothing you couldn’t say – you could make up any number, any fantasy, any coloured sky. It wouldn’t matter – you can’t be disproved until your grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren were long dead and buried.
Nice piece in the current issue of the Spectator-see Bishop Hill. By Mic Lewis and Matt Ridley. Titled “Breaking the Ice” it covers the current debate between Steig and O’Donnell regarding Antarctic Temp reconstructions. Worth the price of admission. Rather spend my 14 cts a day there than at the ABC.
Guys this is serious.If these guys are correct and we don’t do something to fix it, then some of us could be dead by 2200.
so…hm, ya got a lot of that perma-frost
in Australia do ya?
Well, at some point in time it must have been warmer to get all that organic matter down there to freeze, right? So if the earth wasn’t a fiery venus-planet at that point, why would it be when it defrosted back out?
Is there any possibility that a thawed permafrost might be fertile soil and thus lots and lots of plants woudl grow in it, sucking up lots and lots of co2 as they did?
I doubt anyone really listens to this stuff. I mean, really. 2200? Come on That’s like asking Captain Cook whether he thinks Sydney will be suitable for the 2000 olympics.
Hmmm, let’s see now. I’ll just reach into this warmist bag of tricks and standard answers and see what I can find to answer your question Simon.
Ahh, yes here it is, right down the bottom next to the independent committee, the independent inquiry and the consensus…..yes…here we go….it’s an anomaly.
Simon, here’s a little energy conversion calculation Steamboat McGoo worked up for me in 2009 when Assclown Henry Waxman said the ice caps would “evaporate.” Enjoy.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/agw-assclown-of-the-millennium-and-its-only-tuesday/
Clearly, too much tax payers funds are being squandered on ridiculous studies such as this one… claiming 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.
How could anyone claim to know what climate events will occur in twenty or thirty years time let alone in 190 years time? It’s absolutely ridiculous!
When you see scientific papers concluding with words like ‘COULD’, ‘MAY’, and ‘SEEM TO SUGGEST’, what the authors are really saying is they just don’t know. Their scientific paper simply becomes a compulsory formality to meet the terms and conditions of their government grant… often not worth the paper it’s written on.
And sadly, governments implement costly and detrimental climate policies based on studies like this, indicating “this could happen…” and “that may happen”… nothing but mere guesswork disguised as science.
Those words CLEARLY indicate to me the politicization of science.
Or, if I don’t want to be pinned down to that statement I would say “Those words seem to indicate the politicization of science”
Words such as “may, seem to suggest, could indicate, are likely to” and any other similar words or phrases are nothing but political bullshit spin words used by fudgers not wanting to be pinned down to any particular position.
Their use is common practice in government organisations.
The science illiterates making this claim about the Permafrost must have missed the Inconvenient FACT that atmospheric methane concentration stopped increasing in 1990 at a trivial 1.77 ppm (1,770 ppb). They also missed the story that bacteria in the Caribbean destroyed all of the methane emitted from the BP oil spill.
I would cite the hysteria of the War of the Worlds broadcast one dark night back in the 30’s
the jokers in the House just failed to de-fund the EPA’s back-door carbon control scheme….stupid is as stupid does
Paul @ 13
The FACT is Methane is on the increase and has been since 2007. Been very warm up there in the Arctic. That is why the levels are rising.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/NOAA%20full%20data%20graph.html
http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/24/noaa-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-methane-rise-sharply-in-2007/
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/18/arctic-research-center-the-underwater-permafrost-is-thawing-and-releasing-methane/
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/04/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/