How will permafrost affect and be affected by global environmental change?

Permafrost is defined as ground that remains at or below 0°C for at least two consecutive years. Permafrost underlies approximately 25 % of the land area in the northern hemisphere and can be up to 1500 m thick. Under current climate-change scenarios, permafrost degrades from both the top and bottom, increasing the depth of the “active layer”, and the extent of talik formation.

The deepening of the active layer could trigger the massive decomposition of organic matter stored in the first three meters below surface. The most recent estimates put the organic carbon pool in permafrost at 50% of the global soil organic carbon pool. This pool is equivalent to twice the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The decomposition processes would lead to the emission of vast quantities of greenhouse gases, including methane and carbon dioxide, which could greatly affect the global climate.

Under the sea, permafrost occurs as subsea permafrost. Its presence on Arctic shelves is intrinsically linked to the occurrence of gas hydrates which are released to the atmosphere through “holes” in the permafrost, called gas seeps. Its exact distribution on the shelves of the Arctic has not yet been correctly assessed, which hampers the attempts to correctly depict the mechanisms of gas hydrate occurrence and release.

In alpine areas, permafrost is responsible for the occurrence and the preservation of landforms that could evolve dramatically, resulting in large scale natural hazards for alpine valley settlements. In the Arctic, rapid coastal erosion of permafrost is expected to increase dramatically following the drastic reduction of summer sea ice extent, threatening the existence of Inuit communities.

Permafrost observation and monitoring is probably one of the most important challenges of the twenty-first century

More information on theIPA website

How can we effectively modify the dangerous human striving for more and more?

In one of the last issues of Science (3 July, p.11), Thomas R. Pickering, in an Editorial mentioned, “ We can begin to think now on a larger scale – an opportunity not to be wasted.” and pointing to interrelationships “…that the issues of economic growth, development, and poverty be seen as linked with the key drivers of food, water, and health, just as climate change is now linked to the key drivers of energy and environment…” he suggested: “Because improvements in any one area depend on the other two, why not devote a summit at the UN General Assembly to the interlinked broad questions of food water and health ?”

Indeed a wonderful idea and first and foremost demonstrating, the world is not a collection of things but a system of interacting processes (dynamics in signaling networks!) So, focusing on natural sciences alone will never be enough, to solve the challenging questions for our planet’s future. There is a human-induced warming in addition to natural trends and cycles of natural climate change and of course, if there should be a solution at all, we have to mind social sciences as well.

Truism is: Economic growth cannot be unlimited and ecology shows the fatal consequences of the call for a never ending consumerism. Ongoing conceptions, initiated by the global financial crisis together with “Peak Oil” and climate crisis, like the “Green New Deal” together with an up-dated “green Keynesianism” are perhaps better than nothing but, basing on sole economic growth, they cannot be the solution.

Kohlmann

Can we quantify uncertainties in complex models of the complete Earth System?

The models we are using to base our judgements on are all imperfect. We must acknowledge this and attempt to address quantitatively how these uncertainties affect the judgements we are able to make on the basis of these models. Without uncertainty estimates (error bars if you like) any decision making will be arbitrary. With them it is more complex, remains subjective but at least can be justified and explained. This will be essential if the hard choices that we face are to be effectively communicated and acted on. Addressing uncertainty is central to all aspects of modelling, from the dynamic climate models to models of ecological systems, society and economics. Coupling such models makes uncertainty quantification even more essential. I believe this is a fundamental question to address before we can even start to answer specific questions about the Earth System.

What are the key regional drivers of future climate change?

Globally, greenhouse gas forcing is the key driver in policy-relevent climate change (ie. over the next 20, 50, 100 years). Regionally -at the scales people live, ecosystems function, water is obtained and crops grown, other forcings can dominate. Land cover change, urbanization, industrial aerosols etc can all have regional fingerprints that while globally small are locally dominant. Other modes of variability, ocean-atmopshere coupling, land-atmopshere coupling, orographic effects etc all can be locally dominant drivers even if they are lost in any global measure of climate change. A research program to understand drivers of climate change at the scales that people live is hugely challenging at a scientific level, technical level for the modelling and in terms of research at the interface of risk and vulnerability.

How can we utilize existing biodiversity data to create a computer-based system to reflect pressures on the environment on an ongoing basis?

We all know that the environment is under pressure and there are many people working towards regulating or relieving these pressures, but how are we doing? This proposed system would create a dashboard of sorts that can be updated on a weekly / monthly basis to show how we are doing in various critical areas of biodiversity. The system would most likely be a website offering graphs and interactive maps (GIS) to show biodiversity pressures and programmes. This would highlight areas that have lots of support (programmes) and areas that are largely overlooked.

Can products and services be labeled in such a way to allow proper quantification of environmental impact at the consumer, household, and institutional levels?

Any attempt to link educational efforts, social campaigns, and even the spread of Earth Systems scientific knowledge with behavioral change capable of causing significant positive environmental consequences will require quantification of environmental impact at the individual, household, and institutional levels. However, such quantification is still very complex, coarse, and innacurate. Basic and applied reasearch, as well as standardization and policy making will be fundamental in this area. Just like WeightWatchers count calories based on product labels, so ClimateWatchers should be able to count GHG emissions. Environmental impact labels should be mandatory, but we don’t have such labels, neither the science to provide the information to print on these labels.

How can local and regional environmental changes be scaled accurately and effectively to enhance the assessment of global changes, and vice-versa? How can we enhance the applicability of global predictions of biodiversity loss, water scarcity, climate change etc. to local and regional decision-making?

Environmental change occurs at varying temporal and spatial scales. Therefore it is imperative we understand how to utilize existing models and scientific understanding to create realistic predictions of biophysical thresholds and environmental consequences that governments and communities can utilize and comprehend. Furthermore, we need to understand how to relate the mitigation, adaptation, and conservation policies of a given locality to the Earth system. Knowledge of how to effectively scale human decisions and environmental change will significantly aid our ability in generating tangible action towards cooperative solutions.

How to store excess CO2 underground?

Nuclear waste need to be stored in special container to avoid contamination of the environment. Co2 level is rising in the atmosphere at a rate of about 2 molecules per million. CO2 emitted from thermal power plants and industrial areas through chimneys should be more amenable for storage. Today 25% of total world wide co2 emission is due to thermal power plants. The number is expected to double in the next decade. Everyone is aware of consequences of co2 in the atmosphere. Co2 absorption in sea acidifying sea water etc. In order to have equilibrium in CO2 cycle enough green cover is required. Less green land mass means excess co2 in the atmosphere and more G.W. resulting climatic change, melting of polar ice, raising sea level which may destroy civilization. Thinking all the consequences some how co2 needs to be curbed or stored underground.

Can we safely use geoengineering approaches to help cool the planet?

We may need to try to experiment with certain geoenginnering approaches to stave off catastrophic global heating. This can buy us time to implement carbon emissions reductions to avert the worst effects of catastrophic climate change. Obstacles: We cannot fully predict the outcomes with present knowledge, though we know that some approaches are less wise than others.

What political and economic changes can reverse climate change and the loss of biodiversity?

The world’s economy depends upon a system of capital accumulation that does not support a sustainable relationship between the nature and the human communities. Natural resources are exploited above the threshold to sustainability. Political changes are required.