Super-Size Deposits Of Frozen Carbon Threat To Climate Change
The vast amount of carbon stored in the arctic and boreal regions of the world is more than double that previously estimated, according to a study published this week.
The amount of carbon in frozen soils, sediments and river deltas (permafrost) raises new concerns over the role of the northern regions as future sources of greenhouse gases.
"We now estimate the deposits contain over 1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere", said Dr. Charles Tarnocai, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, and lead author.
Dr. Pep Canadell, Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project at CSIRO, Australia, and co-author of the study says that the existence of these super-sized deposits of frozen carbon means that any thawing of permafrost due to global warming may lead to significant emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
Carbon deposits frozen thousands of years ago can easily break down when permafrost thaws releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, according to another recent study by some of the same authors.
"Radioactive carbon dating shows that most of the carbon dioxide currently emitted by thawing soils in Alaska was formed and frozen thousands of years ago. The carbon dating demonstrates how easily carbon decomposes when soils thaw under warmer conditions," said Professor Ted Schuur, University of Florida and co-author of the paper.
The authors point out the large uncertainties surrounding the extent to which permafrost carbon thawing could further accelerate climate change.
"Permafrost carbon is a bit of a wildcard in the efforts to predict future climate change," said Dr Canadell. "All evidence to date shows that carbon in permafrost is likely to play a significant role in the 21st century climate given the large carbon deposits, the readiness of its organic matter to release greenhouse gases when thawed, and the fact that high latitudes will experience the largest increase in air temperature of all regions."
Carbon in permafrost is found largely in northern regions including Canada, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, Scandinavia and USA.
The carbon assessment is published this week in the journal of "Global Biogeochemical Cycles" of the American Geophysical Union, and the radiocarbon study was recently published in the journal of Nature.
China said Thursday it was "firmly" opposed to provisions in a new US clean energy bill that will make it easier to impose trade penalties on nations that reject limits to globe-warming pollution.
"China is firmly opposed to such measures," vice foreign minister He Yafei told reporters in Beijing. "We are firmly against such attempts to advance trade protectionism under the pretext of climate change. It is not conducive to world economic recovery. It serves nobody's interests."
It bugs me no end when I find myself agreeing with a Chinese communist ...
On Friday, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed legislation to limit pollution blamed for global warming, handing President Barack Obama a hard-fought major victory. Lawmakers voted for the first time in US history to limit heat-trapping carbon emissions and shift the US economy to cleaner energy.
However, after the House of Representatives passed the legislation, Obama said he did not want the bill to be used to impose trade penalties on countries in the interest of curbing global warming, The New York Times reported.
Is he going to issue a signing statement?
The newspaper said Obama had told reporters at the White House that at a time when the global economy is still deep in recession, he thought "we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there."
The US Senate has still to vote on the energy bill.
China has shown increasing concern in recent years about the consequences of global warming. But as part of ongoing global negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012, China has said the bulk of the responsibility for emissions cuts lies with developed nations.
#1
Heh. I agree, Dr. Steve. This should put a damper on the whole charade. If they won't buy our debt, We're fooked
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/03/2009 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sheesh. America is getting lectured by the likes of China, Pravda and Putin on economics, trade and government. Nothing unusual there, but the horrible part is they are making sense for once. Even stranger, a tiny Central American country is teaching us something about the rule of law. It's a Bizarro World!
One day, I will wake up and find it was only a dream.
#3
The quicker the US terminates most trade with communist China, the quicker and less painfully the US can reindustrialize and recover it's economy. The Cold War would have turned out very differently had the US, instead of embargoing the Soviets, given the USSR as many concessions.
Posted by: ed ||
07/03/2009 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So everyone else acts in the best interests of their country...We are the only ones that are idiots? Ah, the foolish of it all. We are and have been shooting ourselves in our collective feet for some time. China gets it, our govmint doesn't.
How dare the Chinese keep those 5 million unemployed in this recession. Those should be Americans out of jobs seeking politicians to 'redistribute' the wealth! /sarc off
#6
You know, the Chinese have been dependent on the last ten years on the assfawktards in washington nickle-and-diming American manufacturing to death so they can be competitive while at the same time accepting IOU's from a deindustrializing US to pay for all the crap they want to sell us.
I don't really have much sympathy for them OR the politicians. BOO HOO, So there was no honor among thieves? The Chinese are disturbed that they can't trust these immoral idiots that were betraying OUR trust?
This ain't Chilkoot Charlie's, and "We Screw The Other Guy And Pass The Savings On To You" IS NOT A BUSINESS PLAN.
#9
If the US had the $700 billion/year of exported wealth stay in the US, providing capital for jobs and taxes, do you think the US would be in the economic bind it in in today? Would the people be in debt to their eyeballs, relying on credit cards to meet monthly budgets? Would governments up to their asses in red ink, paying for burgeoning welfare rolls, SSI and medicaid, soon unable to even borrow anymore?
That $700 billion that permanently leaves the economy would have circulated 3 times each year in the economy or another 15% of GDP. Instead it goes provide 10% growth in China, jihad and indolent lives of luxury in Arabia, and retirement nest eggs in Germany. No thanks. I'd rather the money work for Americans.
If the US built 15 million cars each year, instead of importing 50%, would Detroit, Gary, the whole "Rust Belt" still look like ghost towns or have remained the richest, most vibrant, most industrialed patch on the planet? Would Silicon Valley be deindustializing w/ technical and production jobs flowing across the Pacific? Would the oil patch be a hollow shell or a vibrant sector of the economy if there was a sensible policy of producing domestic energy? Would the nuclear industry be vibrant, producing dozens of gigawatts of new capacity each year instead of being being tossed like used tissue between the English, French and Japanese?
The only industrial sector that has done OK is aviation. A sector that is directly dependent on military R&D dollars. With the rest of the economy in shambles, even that sector will be starved as revenue will no longer be able to even may for a strong defense.
You go ahead and keep spouting laissez faire bull crap, thinking you can stay rich lending each other borrowed money while competitors eat our industry and 400 years of accumulated wealth. Maybe in another 10 years you will be selling your daughter to pay for the lifestyle you have come to expect.
/sarc off
Posted by: ed ||
07/03/2009 17:50 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Anyone remember 1992 and the phrase the "giant sucking sound?" Ed is right on the money. We've been SOLD OUT by Washington and the "laissez faire" free traders.
#11
If the US built 15 million cars each year, instead of importing 50%, would Detroit, Gary, the whole "Rust Belt" still look like ghost towns or have remained the richest, most vibrant, most industrialed patch on the planet? Would Silicon Valley be deindustializing w/ technical and production jobs flowing across the Pacific? Would the oil patch be a hollow shell or a vibrant sector of the economy if there was a sensible policy of producing domestic energy? Would the nuclear industry be vibrant, producing dozens of gigawatts of new capacity each year instead of being being tossed like used tissue between the English, French and Japanese?
None of those things occured as a result of "laissez-faire economics." There were specific government policies put in place and still in place that led us down the road to ruin.
At Wednesdays Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagans name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport.
It was just a discussion. Were not aware of anything specific, MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.
Its clear that the current crop of congressional leaders want no part of Reagans grand conservative vision for America, but erasing all trace of his memory from an airport thats already been named in his honor is about as petty as you can get.
Why would anybody on Capitol Hill even consider such a patently partisan move, which is guaranteed to make Democrats look small and ridiculous? Do they so fear the inevitable comparisons between the Great Communicator and his teleprompted successor in the White House?
#1
Like the Egyptian Pharaohs did to their predecessors. Look how it turned out. Anonymity for most of them.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
07/03/2009 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"It was just a discussion. We're not aware of anything specific," MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.
.....but the unused Airport Code BHO did come up a few hundred times. Skyline Drive and the Wilson Bridge are also under consideration for renaming as are the city of Leesburg, VA and Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park in Eva, TN.
#6
I read Marion Barry confidante and quit reading. Is this Marion "Cocaine" Barry or some other Marion Barry? The same Marion Barry that was potentate of Washington D.C. a few years ago. They try to remove Ronald Reagan's name from the airport and they are asking for a lot of trouble. Nothing like standing under a tree on top of a hill in an electrical storm.
#7
ed, I would propose "the bitch set me up" airport
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/03/2009 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"National Airport"
Hmmm. Maybe they'll add a word to the full name to bring it more into line with their thinking
National 'Socialist' Airport
Kewl!
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
07/03/2009 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Seriously. I don't know if I would want my name to still be on anything around DC these days. As depression hell continues to develop, people will come to hate that place and the dumbest collection of politicians ever seen in DC....
Spending by lawmakers on taxpayer-financed trips abroad has risen sharply in recent years, a Wall Street Journal analysis of travel records shows, involving everything from war-zone visits to trips to exotic spots such as the Galapagos Islands.
The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.
The cost of so-called congressional delegations, known among lawmakers as "codels," has risen nearly 70% since 2005, when an influence-peddling scandal led to a ban on travel funded by lobbyists, according to the data.
Lawmakers say that the trips are a good use of government funds because they allow members of Congress and their staff members to learn more about the world, inspect U.S. assets abroad and forge better working relationships with each other. The travel, for example, includes official visits to American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Journal analysis, based on information published in the Congressional Record, also shows that taxpayer-funded travel is a big and growing perk for lawmakers and their families. Some members of Congress have complained in recent months about chief executives of bailed-out banks, insurance companies and car makers who sponsored corporate trips to resorts or used corporate jets for their own travel.
Although complete travel records aren't yet available for 2009, it appears that such costs continue to rise. The Journal analysis shows that the government has picked up the tab for travel to destinations such as Jamaica, the Virgin Islands and Australia's Great Barrier Reef.
Lawmakers frequently bring along spouses on congressional trips. If they take commercial flights, they have to buy tickets for spouses. If they fly on government planes -- as they usually do -- their spouses can fly free.
Paris Air Show
In mid-June, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii) led a group of a half-dozen senators and their spouses on a four-day trip to France for the biennial Paris Air Show. An itinerary for the event shows that lawmakers flew on the Air Force's version of the Boeing 737, which costs $5,700 an hour to operate. They stayed at the Intercontinental Paris Le Grand Hotel, which advertises rooms from $460 a night.
The lawmakers were invited to a dinner party at the U.S. Embassy and had cocktails at a private party at the Eiffel Tower. Mr. Inouye attended a dinner sponsored by the Aerospace Industries Association, a U.S. trade group. Another senator on the trip, Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, took a cruise on the River Seine with defense-industry executives and elected officials from Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.
Mr. Inouye and Mr. Shelby declined to comment.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/03/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Senator-elect Al Franken turned a rally at Minnesota's Capitol on Wednesday into an extended thank-you to supporters, promising not to "waste this chance'' in what amounted to a victory speech nearly eight months late.
With a crowd of several hundred cheering his words, the Democratic senator-elect from Minnesota said he had drawn strength from their efforts when his spirits flagged during the long vote recount and subsequent legal battle. "When you win an election by this close a margin, you know not one bit of effort went to waste,'' Mr. Franken said, a day after Minnesota's Supreme Court affirmed his victory and Republican Norm Coleman conceded.
Many in the crowd sported pro-Franken or pro-union shirts. "I'm one of 312,'' read one sign, a nod to Mr. Franken's winning vote margin.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/03/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Waste this chance on what?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/03/2009 1:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm one of 312
Could mean he voted 312 times. Of course for a democrat that would be considered _lite_.
#3
Even if he serves only one term, he has a congressional pension for life. There isn't much he can do at this point to screw things up. He now has free medical care and a monthly check for as long as he lives. Jackpot!
#11
The people of Minn picked a candidate that fits in with the rest of the democrats. The DNC supported him as one of their own and spent millions to help. He is another goon that will vote any way he is told, hug his bunny, learn to pee standing up, and take the American people to the bank for the rest of his worthless life...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/03/2009 16:32 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Someone had to say it.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/03/2009 16:32 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Palin resigns. Ass-clown Franken goes to Washington, and Barry supports a tinhorn Latin narco dictator? We are indeed living a nightmare.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Super-Size Deposits Of Frozen Carbon Threat To Climate Change
Senator-elect Al Franken turned a rally at Minnesota's Capitol on Wednesday into an extended thank-you to supporters, promising not to "waste this chance'' in what amounted to a victory speech nearly eight months late.
