The IPCC scientists and global warming alarmists predicted that increasing CO2 emissions would lead to a catastrophic permafrost tipping point, unleashing gigatons of methane gas - they were wrong
Read here. The Fakegate global warming alarmists and the IPCC's Climategate scientists are enraptured with the doom and gloom of climate change "tipping points." A favorite tipping point is that greater levels of CO2 emissions would cause a global warming that thaws the permafrost in northern latitude regions (tundra regions), such as Siberia, thus releasing gigatons of the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere.
This is referred to as the global warming permafrost tipping point that results in runaway temperature increases. A new peer reviewed study finds that is not happening.
"Focusing on the massive seasonally-frozen ground region of Eurasia, Frauenfeld and Zhang employed a database of soil temperature profiles obtained at 423 stations to estimate the maximum annual soil freezing depth at 387 sites, which they did for the period 1930-2000, with an extension to 2008...Except for warming during the 1970s and 80s, northern Eurasian temperatures appear to have remained fairly stable. And of that warming, Frauenfeld and Zhang state that "the strong decrease in seasonal freeze depths during the 1970s to 1990s was likely the result of strong atmospheric forcing from the North Atlantic Oscillation during that time period." Thus, their work provides little to no evidence for any significant warming of this massive portion of earth's land mass over the past two decades, and absolutely no evidence for recent CO2-induced warming." [Oliver W Frauenfeld, Tingjun Zhang 2011: Environmental Research Letters]
Conclusion: The permafrost tipping point does not endanger the world since the thawing of northern global regions has stabilized since the 1990's, despite the huge increase in CO2 emissions.
IPCC alarmists and climate models predicted that global warming of peatlands would initiate a positive feedback resulting in the increase of CO2 emissions - conclusive research finds the polar-opposite
Read here. Like almost every single predicted positive feedback by the IPCC's Climategate scientists and models, the actual empirical evidence finds that nature abhors positive feedbacks. The warming of peatland (peat bogs) is no different.
[Note: Click on the image, then read the 2nd paragraph to see an example of how the failed climate science predictions of the IPCC corrupts common knowledge.]
Objective, non-activist scientists researched the IPCC peatland prediction and discovered that instead of being a positive feedback, peat regions would be a negative feedback during warming climates.
"Global warming is often predicted to lead to the releasing to the atmosphere of long-sequestered carbon in earth's peatlands, possibly freeing enough of it at a sufficiently rapid rate to rival CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources, with the end result of this scenario being a strong positive feedback to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, which climate alarmists contend will lead to further warming of the planet...employed multi-proxy data derived from a 1073-cm sediment core they extracted in March of 2007 from Tannersville Bog...in order to document the Bog's historical peat accumulation pattern and rate, as well as climate variations experienced by this "temperate tree-covered poor fen"...say their study implies that "northern peatlands can continue to serve as carbon sinks under a warmer and wetter climate, providing a negative feedback to climate warming," which is the exact polar-opposite of what has historically been claimed by the world's climate alarmists." [Shanshan Cai,Zicheng Yu 2011: Quaternary Research]
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Welcome to the wacky world of "consensus" science where anything and everything is tied to global warming. A new study, if interpreted literally, would mean the world could reduce global warming potential if rain forests were reduced in size instead of encouraging their growth in size, which was the original desired outcome.
The key to this study's findings is that a growing forest has increased leaf and twig litter that decomposes into additional CO2 emissions.
Soooooo....if we had left the world pristine and never cut any trees/forests down, the world would be a lot warmer because of all the leaf and twig litter that had decomposed. Ergo, to keep future warming from happening, we need to reduce leaf and twig litter in the rain forests, which dictates the pace of deforestation should accelerate. Got that?
"A new study shows that as climate change enhances tree growth in tropical forests, the resulting increase in litterfall could stimulate soil micro-organisms leading to a release of stored soil carbon..."Most estimates of the carbon sequestration capacity of tropical forests are based on measurements of tree growth. Our study demonstrates that interactions between plants and soil can have a massive impact on carbon cycling. Models of climate change must take these feedbacks into account to predict future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels." The study concludes that a large proportion of the carbon sequestered by greater tree growth in tropical forests could be lost from the soil."
Makes one wonder if this study was funded by some crazed biofuel investors in an attempt to increase needed acreage dedicated to industrial biofuel agriculture, no?
Read here and here. Sooo an AGW-biased "scientist" (affectionately known as a 'liar dude') has claimed that Arctic tundra hasn't burned in 10,000 years because there were no lightning strikes. Hmmmm.....
As it turns out, tundra areas of the Arctic have experienced warm weather, rain, thunder, lightning, malaria and even tundra fires over recorded history. Not a lot, but they do happen.
"Several thunderstorms on the north Siberia coast were recorded in the late 1700’s, and at least nine were observed on the northern coasts of Canada, Alaska or Siberia by explorers in the period 1815-1826...And where there’s thunderstorms there’s fire...Racine et al. (1985), reviewed wildfire records from 1956 through 1983 for the Noatak River watershed region which lies to the west of the North Slope and reported 79 fires during the 28-year study interval, the biggest of which burned nearly 200 square miles of “treeless thaw lake-studded portion of the Mission Lowlands tundra” and most, if not all of which were started by lighting...So there is historical documentation of both thunderstorms and wildfires in the Arctic including Alaska’s North Slope for many years into the past—and clearly previous to the past decade..."
This "scientist" then claimed that the CO2 released in the atmosphere had a huge impact on atmospheric CO2, which is even more bogus. (Note mauve color of below curve when tundra fire occurred - ahem...no impact on CO2 ppm.)
"Since CO2 is generally well-mixed in the atmosphere, Mauna Loa’s measurements should reflect anything unusual that is going on in the annual CO2 cycle. The period of the time when the 2007 Anaktuvuk River fire was burning is highlighted...Stare at/ponder/analyze Figure 2 all you want, but nothing unusual is going to pop out either during or immediately following the Anaktuvuk River fire. Simply put, the CO2 released by the “biggest wildfire ever recorded on the North Slope of Alaska” had an undetectable impact on the evolution of the global CO2 concentration."
As is the case with the majority of AGW-advocate scientists ('liar dudes') one literally cannot trust anything they say, claim or predict based on their "research." It is always tainted and/or biased with some Big Green message about global warming or climate change. And because the American public has caught onto this incessant green propaganda from biased scientists, the vast majority no longer believe them - hey, it's common knowledge they lie at least every 10,000 years seconds or so.
Read here. Map source here. As new research is indicating, the majority of scientists now believe that global warming does not cause an increase in forest fires. The latest peer-reviewed study by Wallenius et al. clearly indicates that forest fire incidents in Siberia have declined over past 100+ years.
This finding (and previous ones) contradicts the IPCC and its Climategate scientists' predictions that global warming would cause an increase of forest fires.
"Working in the northern part of the Irkutsk district of central Siberia, in areas "untouched by modern forestry and agriculture," where "population density is low, with less than 0.1 inhabitant per square kilometer," they studied four individual landscapes"...reconstructing their fire histories from fire-scarred Larix and Pinus trees located in 46 different plots...determined that "in the 18th century, on average, 1.9% of the forests burned annually, but in the 20th century, this figure was only 0.6%," while "the fire cycles for these periods were 52 and 164 years, respectively." And they say that "a further analysis of the period before the enhanced fire control program in the 1950s revealed a significant lengthening in the fire cycle between the periods 1650-1799 and 1800-1949, from 61 to 152 years, respectively." And they report that "a similar phenomenon has been observed in Fennoscandia, southern Canada and the western United States, where the annually burned proportions have decreased since the 19th century..." [Tuomo Wallenius, Markku Larjavaara, Juha Heikkinen, Olga Shibistova 2011: International Journal of Wildland Fire]
Read here. Consensus science claimed that old forests no longer significantly consumed and stored (sequestered) CO2 from the atmosphere. This scientific claim allowed timber/logging companies to convince government officials in numerous countries that by logging old forests, and then replanting with young, fast growing trees, the world would be better off as growth of atmospheric CO2 would be reduced from newer tree consumption. In essence, "consensus" science put mature, forested areas at risk from chain saws in the name of saving the planet from global warming.
A new study out of China overturns the consensus with evidence that old forests still suck prodigious amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere providing a vibrant carbon sink.
"It was once believed that significant carbon sequestration by forests only occurs when they are young and growing vigorously...Tan et al. suggest that it is not really so, reporting the fact that stands of trees with ages in excess of 200 years have been demonstrated by several research groups to act as carbon sinks in both coniferous and mixed forests...buttress this claim by reporting the results of their own study of the subject, in which they employed an eddy covariance technique to examine the carbon balance of a more-than-300-year-old subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest...Clearly, the old notion of old trees contributing next to nothing to global carbon sequestration is manifestly invalid....."Although we observed a “surprisingly” large carbon sink [9 tons of carbon per hectare per year], it is still reasonable and comparable to other findings.The large-and-old trees did not stop sequestering carbon but, rather, sequestered a significant amount of it. Approximately 60% of the biomass increment is contributed by the growth of large trees""...[Zheng-Hong Tan, Yi-Ping Zhang, Douglas Schaefer, Gui-Rui Yu, Naishen Liang, Qing-Hai Song 2011: Atmospheric Environment]
Read here and here. The mind-numbing, repetitive refrain of "the climate models predict" by AGW alarmists has become a joke in the science world, and is often used by comedians as a setup for the punch line of their weather jokes. As has been thoroughly documented, the predictions of climate models and experts are rarely of more value than used toilet paper. The latest IPCC global warming prediction discovered to be erroneous? The direction of mountain vegetation growth.
A new peer-reviewed study by Crimmins et al. discovered that actual California mountain vegetation has been moving downslope instead of upslope on the mountain terrain in spite of global warming. The downslope movement of plants is the exact opposite as predicted by IPCC Climategate scientists and their computer models. This is more climate-change empirical evidence that is not consistent with any IPCC computer model.
“Predictions that climate change will drive trees and plants uphill, potentially slashing their range to perilous levels, may be wrong, suggests a new study that found vegetation in California actually crept downhill during the 20th century.”.....“But comparing data from the early and late 20th century, authors of the Science paper found that despite warming, many plant species in California mountain ranges are growing at lower elevations than they did 80 years ago."....."research in the Eastern Sierra and the Great Basin has also found that tree lines are moving down rather than up, although for slightly different reasons."
Read here. Image source here (click on image to enlarge).
The Australian monsoon tropics used to be covered with rainforests until settlers cleared most for agricultural purposes. Despite Australia's infamous forest/brush fires, the monsoon rainforests have expanded since the mid-20th century.
New peer-reviewed research by Bowman et al. confirms, like so manyof theworld's tropical rainforests, that the Australian monsoon rainforest expansion is most likely due to increased levels of atmospheric CO2 and improved rainfall amounts.
"...the authors write that "a large research program in the Australian monsoon tropics has concluded that monsoon rainforests have expanded within the savanna matrix" since "the middle of the last century," while noting that a similar trend "has been emulated throughout the tropics worldwide,".....At the conclusion of their study, the three researchers write that they "consider it most likely that the expansion of rainforest patches is related to global climate change via increased rainfall and/or the CO2 'fertilizer effect'," since the expansion of Australia's monsoon rainforests occurred "despite hostile fire regimes."". [Bowman, D.M.J.S., Murphy, B.P. and Banfai, D.S. 2010: Landscape Ecology 25: 1247-1260]
Read here. Climate models, based on the AGW alarmist theory, predict that as permafrost thaws from human CO2-induced global warming more CO2 and methane stored in permafrost will be released into the atmosphere. This new release of greenhouse gases will then also increase atmospheric temperatures, a continuous positive feedback according to the models. The latest peer-reviewed research by Blok et al. discovers there is a negative feedback that offsets the thawing and further release of gases.
When the permafrost thaws, the the accelerated expansion and growth of deciduous shrubs set off by warming, shades the the tundra and prevents further thawing - this cooling of the tundra is a negative feedback.
"Blok et al. say their results suggest that "the expected expansion of deciduous shrubs in the Arctic region, triggered by climate warming, may reduce summer permafrost thaw," and that the "increased shrub growth may thus partially offset further permafrost degradation by future temperature increases," while in further support of their conclusion, the six scientists write that (1) permafrost temperature records "do not show a general warming trend during the last decade (Brown and Romanovsky, 2008), despite large increases in surface air temperature," that (2) during the decade before that, "data from several Siberian Arctic permafrost stations do not show a discernible trend between 1991 and 2000 (IPCC, 2007)," and that (3) "a recent discovery of ancient permafrost that survived several warm geological periods suggests that vegetation cover may help protect permafrost from climate warming (Froese et al., 2008)." And last of all, they note that this phenomenon "could feedback negatively to global warming, because the lower soil temperatures in summer would slow down soil decomposition and thus the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere."" [Blok, D., Heijmans, M.M.P.D., Schaepman-Strub, G., Kononov, A.V., Maximov, T.C. and Berendse, F.]
Read here. Global warming alarmists have an amazing propensity to be wrong with their catastrophic predictions. The latest one to get a scientific smack-down is that the maple industry will die in the northeast U.S. because of a warming climate. A new peer-reviewed study finds that the only thing that will change for the maple syrup industry is the date when they actually start "tapping" for the syrup during the winter months.
"Skinner et al. note that “The major finding is that sap collectors will need to get busy earlier in the late winter and spring to adapt to the expected warming winters in the New England states. Through the twenty-first century, the optimal time to maximize sapflow days will advance to an earlier date in the year. By 2100 this change will be nearly 30 days.”.....“Provided the change in the beginning of the sapflow window can be anticipated, the number of sapflow days will change very little through 2100 in the heart of the Northeast U.S. maple syrup production region.....If you are worried that sap producers will be forced to cope with increased climate variability, relax, as Skinner et al. conclude “There is no indication that the year-to-year variability in the number of sapflow days will change substantially through the current century. Current year-to-year variation is a substantial challenge for maple producers; it shouldn’t worsen.”"
Of course, if winter warming in the northeast U.S. area is truly a concern, it would be nice if "unprecedented" or even an itty-bitty warming was really happening. From the U.S. climate agency, we discover that winters in the New England region have been cooling over the last 15 years - at an astonishing minus 11.3 degrees (-11.3) per century rate.
Read here. Over the recent past, IPCC climate alarmist scientists were predicting that the Amazon would suffer incredible shrinkage and losses from the increasing levels of CO2. As is often the case, the Amazonia speculative predictions appear to be without any merit - it would seem, the IPCC climate scientists' predictions just can't stand up to litmus test of empirical (non-computer model) scientific research.
"Three recent papers appearing in leading scientific journals spell trouble for the alarmists’ claims about global warming and the precious and delicate Amazon rainforest.....Saleska et al. used satellite-based measurements and much to their surprise, they found that forest canopy “greenness” over the drought-stricken areas increased at a highly significant rate. They conclude that “These observations suggest that intact Amazon forests may be more resilient than many ecosystem models assume, at least in response to short-term climatic anomalies.”.....Getting right to the bottom line, they [Laurance et al.] report that “Forest biomass also increased over time, with the basal area of trees in our plots, which correlate strongly with tree biomass, rising by 4% on average.”.....“The increasing forest dynamics, growth, and basal area observed are broadly consistent with the CO2 fertilization hypothesis.”.....Lapola et al. conclude “Biome projections for the end of the century in tropical South America are quite variable, depending not only on the climate scenario, but also on the effect of CO2 fertilization on photosynthesis."..... If the CO2 fertilization does in fact occur (and 1,000s of experiments suggest it is occurring and will occur in the future), “most of Amazonia would remain the same.”
Read here and here. As most sentient beings have finally come to realize over the past twelve months, the IPCC is a political organization, with a political agenda, using non-scientific means to mislead, misinform and misrepresent. Or, to put it in more colorful terms, the United Nation's IPCC is a non-repentant agency of climate science bullshit, and any "scientific" claim emanating from this agency should be intently scrutinized and parsed to determine its veracity and objectivity (lack thereof).
The latest evidence that the IPCC is guilty of non-scientific, political propaganda at the minimum, with the IPCC potentially being an accessory to science incompetence (malfeasance?)? One word answer: Amazongate.
1. [Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr] "The bottom line here? The IPCC did indeed make a claim in its report that is unsubstantiated in the literature that it cited in support of the claim. Further, the specific claim being made also appears to be unsubstantiable -- that is, there is nothing in the literature to support the specific claims being made.....For the IPCC this degree of sloppiness and lack of attention to accuracy is troubling. Those claiming that there is nothing to see here are simply wrong -- the IPCC botched this one. The various defenses of this issue are an embarrassment.....Pretending that it did not cannot help either the IPCC or the cause for action, and will likely have the opposite effect, as anyone who takes a moment to look at the issue, as I did, will see the same evidence that I did."
2. [Nasa funded peer-reviewed study] "A new study, funded by Nasa, has found that the most serious drought in the Amazon for more than a century had little impact on the rainforest's vegetation. The findings appear to disprove claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could react drastically to even a small reduction in rainfall and could see the trees replaced by tropical grassland. The IPCC has already faced intense criticism for using a report by environmental lobby group WWF as the basis for its claim, which in turn had failed to cite the original source of the research. Scientists have now spoken out against the 40% figure contained in the IPCC report and say that recent research is suggesting that the rainforest may be more resilient to climate change than had been previously thought.....senior researcher in the new study, criticised the IPCC’s claim that a “even a slight reduction in precipitation” would cause drastic changes in the rainforest.....He said: “There was more than a slight reduction in precipitation during the drought of 2005. It is that particular claim of the IPCC that our analysis rejects.”"
The UN's IPCC has become a global climate science joke that is definitely controlled and managed by political, ideological hacks. The harm to science credibility that the IPCC has perpetrated is immeasurable and will continue for the foreseeable future. In terms of objective, honest climate science, the IPCC is not to be trusted, ever.
Read here and here.The fanatics' hysterical fears of CO2-induced warming, especially from Europeans, produce some truly awful, bizarre global-harming solutions that should have never have been implemented. Besides the self-induced global-harm of burning corn for fuel, the Europeans are now pursuing forest deforestation policies for energy production reasons. Simply put, because the burning of tree biomass is considered a "renewable energy" source, they conveniently justify the destruction of forests to feed their wood burning energy facilities.
"Deforestation is already a big problem globally without the biofuels boom. Promoting the use of wood material for biofuel will only accelerate deforestation.....We have an enormous deforestation problem already, there is no way massive increases in wood to feed bioenergy furnaces could ever be sustainable.....Wood biomass energy is twice as crazy an idea as maize ethanol was.....potential for disaster is absolutely enormous if this takes off in Europe and America"
If the UN and International Criminal Court ever decide to process ecocide cases, the first that should be charged are those politicians who enabled wood-burning energy policies, which facilitate and justify forest destruction.
Read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The 2007 IPCC report makes entirely bogus claims about a major portion the Amazon shortly turning to a savanna condition due to lack of precipitation, caused by human induced CO2-warming. As was discovered earlier this year, this "scientific" claim was found to be nothing more than a green organization's scare propaganda, without peer-reviewed science backing. Recently, a climate alarmist scientist attempted to assert that the bogus claim was indeed peer-reviewed. Turns out, like almost all climate alarmsists, he conveniently misrepresents the facts.
"1. The IPCC made a claim that “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”, and that the South American climate could change rapidly to a new steady state.
2. This was referenced to a WWF review paper which was not peer reviewed.
3. The WWF paper had no citation for that claim.
4. Dr. Lewis says the claims are correct. However, like the IPCC, he does not provide a citation for his claim that the 40% statement is correct. He points us to a 2009 paper, of which he is a co-author. It doesn’t contain any support for the 40% claim. He refers to a few climate models, but shows no evidence.
5. Dr. Lewis says that there is “much uncertainty” about the question.
6. Dr. Lewis does not provide any evidence to support the idea that the South American climate is likely to change rapidly to a new steady state.
However, all of this, all of the claims and counterclaims, and the models, and Dr. Lewis’s letter, and the cited scientific documents, all run aground on one ugly fact:The data shows no change in Amazon rainfall in a century of measurements."
Read here. The IPCC and its global warming scientists have predicted that global warming will increase forest fire activity. There was no actual science that supported these predictions, merely AGW speculative assertions. Again, as is often the case, new research shows lame alarmist IPCC predictions to be nothing more than smoke.
"A recent article has appeared in Global Change Biology written by seven scientists with various institutions in Canada, France, and Germany that might come as a surprise to the alarmist camp.....“Some contradictory evidence in the literature has led authors to question the likelihood of seeing an increase in boreal wildfire risk under warming of the Northern Hemisphere. Despite warming since about 1850 and increased incidence of large forest fires in the 1980s, a number of studies indicated a decrease in boreal fire activity in the last 150 years or so.”.....The authors [Girardin et al.] reinforce their claim that fires activity has decreased noting “The fact that diminishing fire activity has also been detected on lake islands on which fire suppression has never been conducted provides another argument in support of climate control.”
Scientists involved with the study of ancient and historical climates
are well aware of the impact that nature's major cooling and warming
oscillations have on the environment. Cold periods, such as the Little
Ice Age (LIA), can be very destructive to plant life, literally causing
vegetation to shift southward in the Northern Hemisphere seeking warmth.
Once natural warming returns though, vegetation will shift back to its
previous northern boundaries.
This is exactly what happened with
the forests of northern Canada. After the LIA, the tree line shifted in
some areas up to 200 kilometers farther north.(click image to enlarge)
1772: “I have observed during my several journeys in those parts that
all the way to the north of Seal River the edge of the wood is faced
with old withered stumps, and trees which have been flown (sic) down by
the wind….Those blasted trees are found in some parts extend to a
distance of twenty miles from the living woods, and detached patches of
them are much farther off; which is proof that the cold has been
increasing in these parts for some ages. Indeed some of the older
Northern Indians have assured me that they have heard their fathers and
grandfathers say, they remembered the greatest part of those places
where the trees are now blasted and dead, in a flourishing state.”
Read here. Climate models have been programmed to produce a thawing of the tundra permafrost from human CO2-induced warming. This tundra "melting" will produce an explosion of CO2 and methane gas into the atmosphere. This is the mighty lore of the AGW hypothesis, thus models must be instructed to simulate this outcome. Fortunately, the AGW hypothesis and climate model programmers were wrong - like big time.
Turns out that Arctic warming encourages growth of vegetation, especially dense, ground covering shrubs, which cause the ground to be shaded (go figure). As a result, the permafrost does not thaw as expected and large amounts of greenhouse gases are not released. Voilà, a natural negative feedback!
""Permafrost temperature records, however, do not show a general warming trend during the last decade, despite large increases in surface air temperature. Data from several Siberian Arctic permafrost stations do not show a discernible trend between 1991 and 2000. Our results suggest that an expansion of deciduous shrubs in the Arctic triggered by climate warming may buffer permafrost from warming resulting from higher air temperatures.”....Blok et al. conclude “These results suggest that the expected expansion of deciduous shrubs in the Arctic region, triggered by climate warming, may reduce summer permafrost thaw. Increased shrub growth may thus partially offset further permafrost degradation by future temperature increases. Permafrost models need to include a dynamic vegetation component to accurately predict future permafrost thaw.”"
Read here. New research finds that the tree lines are not moving northward as predicted by global warming advocates and climate alarmist scientists. The research also found that winter temperatures have more influence over tree lines than summer temperatures, a complete contradiction of established "consensus" science.
Since the trees did not advance northward as expected from global warming, this may indicate that the actual warming was overstated by other scientists. A reasonable explanation is that the trees are reacting to more moderate temperature increases than those originally claimed by warming alarmists.
"In a new research, scientists have found that treelines are not universally responding to climate warming by advancing as expected....Treelines are the elevation or latitudinal limits where trees are capable of growth or survival and are considered to be early indicators of climate warming because they are constrained primarily by cold temperatures....Summer temperature is widely considered to be the primary control of treeline formation and maintenance, whereas winter temperatures have previously been considered less critical because of the insulative effects of snow....This study reveals how winter warming has overturned this prevailing view."
Read here and here. As with every unsubstantiated, speculative prediction made by alarmists and climate models, there is a grain of truth regarding melting tundra/permafrost releasing stored carbon dioxide. But researchers have discovered that when these melted areas are thawed, the explosion of new growth of vegetation becomes a positive CO2 sink that sequesters carbon dioxide in greater quantities than that released from the thaw. So instead of permafrost melting being a positive warming feedback, it actually becomes a negative feedback - funny how the climate always seems to do that in the end.
"In light of these compelling observations, it would appear that even if global warming were to accelerate and reach a tipping point that led to the demise of much of the world's permafrost, the subsequent "terrestrialization" of these regions would actually lead to more carbon being stored in the soils and vegetation of these parts of the world, rather than -- as climate alarmist claim -- more being lost."
And what about the release of methane (CH4) from melting?
"Delisle throws in another fast ball regarding methane (CH4) at the end of the article by stating “A second, rarely touched upon question is associated with the apparently limited amount of organic carbon that had been released from permafrost terrain in previous periods of climatic warming such as e.g. the Medieval Warm Period or during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”"
Just another reason why climate models are not an accurate representation of how the real-world climate actually works.
Read here. As has been well documented by many peer-reviewed studies, increases in atmospheric CO2 has done wonders for the biosphere and vegetation growth. The Amazon is just the most spectacular example.
"Gloor et al. conclude that their results lend "further support to the notion that currently observed biomass gains for intact forests across the Amazon are actually occurring over large scales at the current time, presumably as a response to climate change," which in many of their earlier papers is explicitly stated to include the aerial fertilization effect of the historical increase in the air's CO2 content."
Read here. Increased atmospheric CO2 levels have done wonders for old tropical rain forests, such as the Amazon, and newer ones growing on former cleared lands. Based on the findings of their research,
"Consequently, it would appear that the historical increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, has been good for the Amazon's trees, and (very likely) for the rest of the region's plants and animals, even in the face of the local warming of 0.26°C per decade that they report for the region since the mid-1970s."
Read here. The new and robust vegetation growth in Africa comes as no surprise to those who follow the actual science of CO2 impact on the biosphere. Vegetation, be it grasslands or forests or agriculture, love higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures. It's not only Africa that will improve due to more CO2 and warmer temperatures, the entire world will.
Read here. It now appears that the vast majority of scientists have been wrong in their conclusion that old rain forests naturally become carbon 'sources' in old age. (Imagine that, the scientific "consensus" wasn't correct, amazing.)
The new research has discovered these old trees to be sucking up the excess CO2, much to their liking and new growth. Scientists now estimate these old forests might account for up to 50% of the infamous, global "missing carbon sink."
Read here and here. Obama's Cabinet members keep revealing themselves as climate illiterates as they just simply blame every natural event on global warming to convince taxpayers that 'Cap & Tax' is necessary. In the case of Colorado which he was referencing, various beetle types have destroyed millions of acres of lodgepole pine and spruce and the "warming" trend in Colorado since 1998 has been at a -0.60°F per decade rate (yes, minus 0.60°from July 1998 to July 2009).
Read here. Also here. Whether it's the rain forests or polar ice caps, the political driven agenda of the IPCC and climate alarmist scientists causes bogus claims to be made in order to create and grow "global warming" fear. Fortunately, there are scientific researchers who expose the hysterical claims for what they are.
Synopsis: The benefit of natural 'carbon capture' will be enhanced by increasing CO2 and warming.
Source here. "The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, as well as any degree of warming that might possibly accompany it, will not materially alter the rate of decomposition of the world’s soil organic matter and will probably enhance biological carbon sequestration. Continued increases in the air’s CO2 concentration and temperature will not result in massive losses of carbon from earth’s peatlands. To the contrary, these environmental changes—if they persist—would likely work together to enhance carbon capture."