New research shows that the amount of carbon stored in frozen soils at high latitudes is double previous estimates and could, if emitted as carbon dioxide and methane, lead to a significant increase in global temperatures by the end of this century.
1 July 2009
“Massive amounts of carbon stored in frozen soils at high latitudes are increasingly vulnerable to exposure to the atmosphere,” says the Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project at CSIRO, Dr Pep Canadell.
“The research shows that the amount of carbon stored in soils surrounding the North Pole has been hugely underestimated.”
“Using the new carbon pool estimates from this research, permafrost degradation could account for the entire upper range of carbon-climate feedbacks currently estimated by climate models,” Dr Canadell says. 
In a paper published in the latest edition of Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Dr Canadell says frozen high-latitude soils have the potential to release vast quantities of carbon and methane into the atmosphere and subsequently influence carbon-climate feedbacks.
“Warmer temperatures at high latitudes are already resulting in unprecedented permafrost degradation,” he says. “Projections show that almost all near-surface permafrost will disappear by the end of this century exposing large carbon stores to decomposition and release of greenhouse gases.”
Models developed in collaboration with Dr Canadell show that global warming could trigger an irreversible process of thawing.
“A number of feedbacks increase the vulnerability of these soils. For example, heat generated from increased microbial activity could lead to sustained and long-term chronic emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.”
In addition, ‘thermokast lakes’ formed as permafrost thaws, would draw heat to deeper layers and bring methane to the surface.
Increased fire frequency will also trigger permafrost degradation and thermokast collapse.
“Using the new carbon pool estimates from this research, permafrost degradation could account for the entire upper range of carbon-climate feedbacks currently estimated by climate models,” Dr Canadell says. 
“The potential for significant feedbacks from permafrost carbon could be realised with only a small fraction of currently frozen carbon released to the atmosphere. For example if only 10 per cent of the permafrost melts, the resultant feedback could result in an additional 80 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent released into the atmosphere, equating to about 0.7°C of global warming.”
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR)  [external link]
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research is a partnership between CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.
———————
Does anybody have any idea of how to shut down the methane production from tundra lakes that used to be frozen peat bogs? Doing the obvious multiplication: 100% of permafrost = 800ppm CO2 equivalent = 7 degrees C. That puts us over the limit all by itself. These are huge lakes, not small ponds.

In my tussles with the haute sycophancy, I recently saw Obama et al. accused of being Enron all over again. Great fuel, thanks.

We’ll have to agree to differ. I might agree with you if the US was setting the bar high, but 17% reduction on 2005 levels by 2020 doesn’t even bring the US back to the 1990 baseline that everyone else is working to. By comparison “The EU has promised to cut emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 30% if other rich countries join in, measured against 1990 levels.”

http://www.europeanvoice.com/ article/ 2009/ 05/ us,-eu-climate-change-targets-are-comparable-/ 65021.aspx

On this basis it is hard to see how W-M will galavnize other coutries into more agressive targets.

[JR: "Galvanize" is not the word I'd use. And the 2020 target is too weak, but shouldn't be the sole focus of attention.]

Can’t disagree over China though. Their explosive economic growth rate based on dirty coal, coupled with 20% of the entire world population is an unfolding disaster.

[JR: W-M allows U.S. to negotiate a deal with China -- and gives us some change Copenhagen will not be the abject failure it would be if W-M dies.]

Your blog really doesn’t like me…

[JR: It has a mind of its own!]

Do you see the UN as being central to the process? I do. Unless all nations can sign up to some sort of coherent plan for emissions reduction led by the UN I don’t think progress will be fast enough, sustained and all-inclusive.

Individual nations will always find the temptation of burning or selling more fossil fuel locally outweighs the rather abstract goal of contributing their bit to a global solution. We see this continually in carbon-intensive countries with high living standards such as Australia and Canada.

I agree that the US and China together currently make up a large part of the problem (about 50%), but go it alone and you find lesser nations such as India ramping up their emissions and taking your place. Net result – CO2 keeps rising.

[JR: Central? No. I see the UNFCCC process as valuable yes but the jury is out as to whether it is central. Right now, IF the U.S. can pass the current climate bill, then I have every companies that Europe, Japan, etc. will agree to do at least as much if not more. Then China is far and away the most important after that. They really trump the rest of the developing world all by themselves.]

To draw on the combined wisdom of history and science or listen to DICKs (Denier-Industrial-Complex Kooks)