Junk science update: Hey, speaking of our super-great climate models, we just remembered that we forgot to include another factor that could cost us another $100 billion annually in bad-weather-prevention bills

The World Today - Emissions from permafrost not taken into account 28/11/2012

PEP CANADELL: So if we were to have this new carbon coming from the permafrost melting you would be adding additional, anywhere between 3, 4 per cent to the current emissions to as much as a little more than 10 per cent. That is actually very significant.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: At the moment, it's not a problem that scientific or environmental organisations have factored in.

The United Nations Environment Programme coordinator is Keith Alverson.

KEITH ALVERSON: The brief answer to the question is no. Neither the scientific community nor UNEP in its gap report nor the IPCC have fully accounted for the potential positive feedback of enhanced greenhouse gases from permafrost melting.
...
PEP CANADELL: If as a community, a global community we were to decide to stabilise global temperatures at not more than two degrees centigrade compared to pre-industrial and we had additional emissions come from the permafrost which are now not taken into account in our climate projections, and we're looking at additional mitigation, so that we don't go beyond that two degrees, we're looking at anywhere annually between $30 billion and $100 billion excess money having to go into mitigation, just to cope with this additional source.