New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Permafrost Meltdown May Herald Climate Catastrophe

The thawing of a thin layer of frozen Arctic soils will exacerbate global warming. David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Sinkholes dot the landscape from Anchorage to Murmansk as surface soil layers thaw. Average Arctic temperatures have risen by 2 degrees Celsius in recent years, melting soil that had been frozen for millennia. And that means both mealtime for microbes—and bad news for climate change.

A new study from researchers at the U.S.'s National Snow and Ice Data Center suggests a permafrost thaw and subsequent microbial chowdown could add at least 126 gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere over the next 200 years. That's about half as much as humans have already added through burning fossil fuels over the last 200 years.

The frozen soils of the far north are already changing—from a tremendous storehouse of greenhouse gases to a tremendous source.  That means any efforts aimed at limiting greenhouse gas concentrations will have to be even more stringent in reducing the burning of fossil fuels, clearing of forests and the like.

On the upside, thawed soils will allow shrubs and other plants to begin to march north, a process that is already happening, as well as the creation of new peatlands, which can store a lot of carbon. Their growth will likely counterbalance some of the increased emissions from melting permafrost.

But that balance will only last for a few decades, at best. And that makes cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions an even more pressing priority.

—David Biello

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe