Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 3, 2016
Scientists have long feared this ‘feedback’ to the climate system. Now they say it’s happening
At a time when a huge pulse of uncertainty has been injected into the global project to stop the planet’s warming, scientists have just raised the stakes even further.
In a massive new study published Wednesday in the influential journal Nature, no less than 50 authors from around the world document a so-called climate system “feedback” that, they say, could make global warming considerably worse over the coming decades.
That feedback involves the planet’s soils, which are a massive repository of carbon due to the plants and roots that have grown and died in them, in many cases over vast time periods (plants pull in carbon from the air through photosynthesis and use it to fuel their growth). It has long been feared that as warming increases, the microorganisms living in these soils would respond by very naturally upping their rate of respiration, a process that in turn releases carbon dioxide or methane, leading greenhouse gases.
It’s this concern that the new study validates. “Our analysis provides empirical support for the long-held concern that rising temperatures stimulate the loss of soil C to the atmosphere, driving a positive land C–climate feedback that could accelerate planetary warming over the twenty-first century,” the paper reports.
This, in turn, may mean that even humans’ best efforts to cut their emissions could fall short, simply because there’s another source of emissions all around us. The very Earth itself.
“By taking this global perspective, we’re able to see that there is a feedback, and it’s actually going to be massive,” said Thomas Crowther, a researcher with the Netherlands Institute of Ecology who led the research published Wednesday.
The new study is actually a compilation of 49 empirical studies, examining soil carbon emissions from research plots around the globe. The different studies produced variable results, including some cases in which soils actually pulled carbon from the air rather than releasing it. However, the researchers insist there was a pattern globally that was “predictable”: Soil carbon losses generally tended to track how much warming a region had seen, and how thick the upper soil layer was.
The paper therefore found that the biggest losses were in Arctic regions, where soils are warming rapidly and also where they are quite thick — but also that well down through the mid-latitudes, soils were also losing carbon. And the net result for the research plots as a whole was a loss of soil carbon.
The paper then extrapolated these findings for the globe, finding that by the year 2050, the planet could see 55 billion tons of carbon (which converts to 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide, were it all to be released in this form) released from soils. That’s if we continue on with a “business as usual” scenario of global greenhouse gas emissions and accompanying warming.
“It’s of the same order of magnitude as having an extra U.S. on the planet,” said Crowther. The world has less than 1,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide remaining to emit in order to preserve a reasonable chance of holding the planet’s warming below 2 degrees Celsius, a widely embraced target, so soil emissions could help to bust the carbon budget.
Crowther argues that until now, the science community has often left this potential carbon feedback from planetary soils out of its calculations because it wasn’t well enough understood. “The entire magnitude of this feedback was removed from several of the earth system models, the models that inform [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], because of its massive uncertainty,” he says.
Moreover, he adds that while the study did heavily consider the Arctic and thus, regions of permafrost soil (a huge repository of planetary carbon), it only took into account emissions from the upper layer of soil, about 10 centimeters thick. So if warming liberates carbon from deeper permafrost layers too — a major fear — then the numbers presented above for soil emissions could be too small.
There is, of course, one potential offset to this — even as the Earth’s surface is losing carbon from soils, it also appears to be putting at least some back again due to an increased growth in vegetation, which is being fertilized by more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in tern enhancing plant photosynthesis. However, Crowther does not believe this will suffice to offset soil carbon losses.
A recent study found that in the past decade or more, plant growth had indeed been sequestering more carbon dioxide — but as the lead author told the Post, “It’s good news for now. We can’t expect it to continue.”
Another researcher who focuses on Arctic soils and reviewed the study for the Post, permafrost expert Ted Schuur of Northern Arizona University, agreed with Crowther on plant growth, suggesting that even if models predict it may offset soil loses, field studies like the ones summarized here don’t support that.
“This impressive work again highlights the largest losses of soil C from high latitudes, which agrees with field measurement and incubations that we’ve summarized in our work,” said Schuur. “These losses offset gains that are predicted in soil C in other temperature and subtropical ecosystems.” Schur added that since the study only considers the first 10 centimeters of soil in the Arctic, “we might consider that a minimum loss since there is a lot of soil C beneath that.”
Two other outside experts contacted by the Post took a similar tack.
“The authors correctly point out the lack of information from tropical ecosystems, in fact the southern hemisphere is not represented. Thus we need more data,” said Charles Rice, a soil microbiology professor at Kansas State University who pointed out several limitations in the paper. But Rice nonetheless concluded that “the high latitudes are particularly vulnerable and a large source of CO2 back to the atmosphere. This highlights the need to do early action.”
The study gives “strong support to the hypothesis that soils will release a substantial amount of carbon in response to rising air temperatures,” added Jonathan Sanderman, a scientist with the Woods Hole Research Center who studies soil changes under climate change. “This is really critical, because if the additional release of carbon is not counterbalanced by new uptake of carbon by plants then it’s going to exacerbate climate change and increases the urgency to immediately reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
But Sanderman also noted studies have suggested that better management of agricultural soils could sequester large amounts of carbon, perhaps enough to offset the losses projected in the new study.
“While this paper shows how soils are part of the problem, it’s important to note that soils can also be part of the solution,” Sanderman continued.
82 Comments on "Scientists have long feared this ‘feedback’ to the climate system. Now they say it’s happening"
Pat McCormick on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 11:54 am
Time we started planting a lot more trees than we cut down.
bryan on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:05 pm
Not a scientist, politician, oil man, or affiliated with any other entity economically involved; however, I’ve long suspected that our universities are purposefully putting forth false agendas merely to make U.S. dumber. Scientist-schmientist, who cares, their all the same. Bunch of nitwits with doctorate level educations who wasted over 2 decades of being in the labor force and 250K of cash because there was no other way for somebody so stupid to get a 75K a year job. I say shut down all the colleges and build lots of factories for these boneheads to work at and all will be fine. I watched Celebrity Apprentice a couple times, that Trump guy he’s smarter than the combined knowledge of all scientists, all General’s, heck-anybody; he was even smart enough to go bankrupt 4x. Man, looking back I’m so glad I never finished college or I’d just be another dummy. The whole change your skills to fit a changing economy was completely backwards; world economics needs to change, not me. Places in the world where people are hungry enough to work for .10 cents per hour should just be eliminated-bunch of losers. Should use some precision bombing and take out all the poor or displaced starving people-only 1 out of 3 people go to bed hungry at night anyways-get rid of ’em. World revolves around USA, god chose us to be rich, who cares about rest of world. Burn that coal baby, we’ll keep the lights on while smog makes for prettier sunsets. Also never wear a seat belt because if you flip upside down into water you’ll probably drown so avoid that seat belt at all costs-it will kill you. Ah, low on power, stinking liberals probably stealing my energy to power smoothie blenders-dang. Whew, just an extension cord issue, thought I was going to have to figure out electricity-seems hard-ohms, resistance, watts, who cares anyways. Well, time for football, real men’s stuff. Maybe Cam will give some advice on this climate change thing, Brady probably knows more but I think he’s one of those liberals who graduated college-not believing him for a second.
Wayne Roth on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:09 pm
The problem isn’t the science, it’s been clear enough for quite a while, we don’t need any more massive studies; the problem is getting this information out to the public in more than just one blip of a news cycle when our wonderful president elect sucks up 25% – 50% of all the “news” every day.
This excellent video, Arctic Emergency Scientists Speak, was likely done at an AGU conference in San Francisco. It starts with typical climate/weather news stories but at 1:10 transitions to 8 scientists talking about their concerns of increasing temperature degradation of the Arctic region.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3XpF1MvC8s
This new massive soil study is just more confirmation about what is already understood. We are rapidly running out of time to deal with our Anthropogenic Climate Change Emergency.
In 2014 Steven Chu said at a Stanford climate lecture that “4, 5, 6C is really non adaptable bad.” We have no more time to squander.
Rentonito on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:13 pm
These comments submitted by bryan on this Sunday morning are a sad example of how far we have declined as a nation.
denial on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:20 pm
I just got to throw this out because I have been coming to this site for a long time and when all of sudden there is a massive amount of new people with “alt right ” I have to think that Steven Bannon and his Trumpanzees are up to mis information dissemination….After seeing all the false stories on Zero Hedge and watching the brown shirts get all excited when their “dog whistles ” were called…. The order “go forth and find any story on climate change and put massive negative comments in the comment section to make people think the conversation is false!!! Would not take much effort as most of them are uneducated and unemployed….
aidan on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:27 pm
Rentonito – I think bryan is joking….I think/hope /pray that I am correct.
Apneaman on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:31 pm
Humans will be extinct before this century is out due to the fact that they are a plague species. AGW is the final nail in the coffin. The other nails are their strip mining of the planet and “development”. Even without AGW the 6th mass extinction, which is well under way, would still be underway just not quite as far. Never since life started on this planet have changes happened at this speed.
The non argument is stupid and lazy. No one ever said it did not change, so there is a strawman right from the get go. The question is why and how and we know why and how and how fast. In almost every instance climate change was triggered by massive releases of CO2 from volcanic traps. These events radically altered all of the earth’s natural systems. The big difference. The smoking gun is that all the evidence indicates that these previous climatic changes took place over tens to hundreds of thousands years. Almost everyone who makes the “climate always changes” non argument do not know this because their denial is based on pure emotion and tribalism. They are too fucking lazy and stupid to educate themselves and should know many of the scientific basics since hundreds of thousand of tax dollars were spent on their basic K-12 education – what an obscene waste of money. Why is it that all these fuck wads simply make the statement “climate always changes”, yet provide zero evidence along with their assertion and expect to be taken seriously? There is a few hundred years of accumulated scientific evidence on the history of this planet, billions of man hours and mountains of evidence and data and you ignorant self assured cunts do not know any of it, but you just know you are right because you “feel it”, right? Same as the Jesus cult and all the other cults. All your stupid cookie cutter responses come straight out of think tanks. There is rarely a variation on them – just millions and millions of ignorant denier parrots making the same stupid comments over and over. Useful idiots indeed. Oh well, it’s not all bad since deniers will take no precaution they along with their stupid offspring will be evolutionarily selected to go bye bye first. The only reason most of you retards are alive is because you and a handful of generations of your ancestors have been protected by the wealth of scientific knowledge of modernity. Once the technological bubble pops nature will go back to weeding out the stupidest of the humans first.
Apneaman on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:36 pm
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
“Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.”
“Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions.
Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth’s past.
Abrupt vs slow change.
Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=22&p=11
Apneaman on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:40 pm
Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species
“It’s long been known that massive increases in emission of CO2 from volcanoes, associated with the opening of the Atlantic Ocean in the end-Triassic Period, set off a shift in state of the climate which caused global mass extinction of species, eliminating about 34% of genera. The extinction created ecological niches which allowed the rise of dinosaurs during the Triassic, about 250-200 million years ago.
New research released this morning in Science Express has refined the dating of this wave of volcanism. It shows marine and land species disappear from the fossil record within 20,000 to 30,000 years from the time evidence for the eruption of large magma flows appears, approximately 201 million years ago. These volcanic eruptions increased atmospheric CO2 and increased ocean acidity.
Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago. As our anthropogenic global emissions of CO2 are rising, at a rate for which no precedence is known from the geological record with the exception of asteroid impacts, another wave of extinctions is unfolding.”
http://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906
Victorie on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:53 pm
We can’t have a guy like Trump in the White House. He will do everything in his power to disrupt the Paris Accord on climate change, destroy the EPA, etc. To use one of his favorite words, it would be a “disaster.” He and his ilk believe that climate change is a plot invented by the Chinese, to make money. Please sign the Petition on change.org asking the Electors on Dec. 19th to elect Hillary Clinton to the White House. Nearly 5 million people have signed it to date. Thank you very much.
Apneaman on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 12:56 pm
Alarming new study makes today’s climate change more comparable to Earth’s worst mass extinction
“The Permian Mass Extinction 251.9 million years ago, otherwise known as “The Great Dying,” was the closest this planet has come to extinguishing all complex life on Earth. Around 90% of all species died out in this single event, a worse toll even than the Cretaceous extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs.
For years the cause of the Permian Mass Extinction has been linked to massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia. Volcanic CO2 and a cocktail of noxious gasses combined with burning coal and geothermally-baked methane emissions to enact a combination of toxic effects and, most importantly, ocean acidification and global warming.”
“The changes occurred over gentle timescales of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years – plenty slow enough for slow feedbacks like the deep oceans and ice sheets to keep pace.”
“They were all (possibly excluding the PETM – see below) triggered by rare volcanic outpourings called “Large Igneous Provinces,” (LIPs) that emitted massive volumes of CO2 and methane at rates comparable to today’s emissions.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lee-commentary-on-Burgess-et-al-PNAS-Permian-Dating.html
Apneaman on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 1:22 pm
CO2 levels and mass extinction events
“The chart below is adapted from a similar graph in Dr. Peter Ward’s book, “Under a Green Sky.” It simply plots all the mass extinction events of the last 500 million years against the best estimate of carbon dioxide levels (CO2) at the time. According to his analysis all major extinctions occurred when CO2 levels exceeded a thousand parts per million (ppm).”
http://www.johnenglander.net/co2-levels-and-mass-extinction-events/
Apneaman on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 1:24 pm
Daily CO2
December 3, 2016: 404.42 ppm
December 3, 2015: 400.38 ppm
October CO2
October 2016: 401.57 ppm
October 2015: 398.29 ppm
https://www.co2.earth/
Disinterested observer of Earth's destruction on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 2:10 pm
“Once the technological bubble pops nature will go back to weeding out the stupidest of the humans first.”
I propose that lions and tigers be allowed to roam our countryside and the cities and eat any human they can bring down. With all the fat, lazy, stupid people in this country they’d be some well fed lions and tigers. And we would have a lean, healthy and smart people.
No shooting the lions and tigers of course, that would be a capital offense.
jim on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 3:46 pm
very informative its good to see real science information instead of the knuckle daggers misinformation.should we not be looking at removing and storing co2 to try to slow climate change ?
bob on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 3:50 pm
there is noclimate change do carbon monmxide.
but there is a problem with nitris oxides
out of the engins useing ethonmol.
peakyeast on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 3:57 pm
I must say – it looks like the establishment has fooled everybody to think there actually was a choice in the elections. Just like they did with Obama&Hillary. Yeah – that really changed things with Obama being there – no?
I wonder what trick they will try next time.. An indian gay hermaphrodite vs Native American bisexual? Seems likely…
John on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 4:01 pm
Thank you Bryan. You are a master of sarcasm.
This article basically misses the most important point. We are already too late to do anything about climate change. Unless you want to kill off at least half the people on this planet, no matter what you do the CO2 levels will not come down enough to make a difference. We’ve set the forces in motion and there is no stoping them now. I’m not a denier, but it’s just as insane to believe that taxes will make a difference.
We’ve screwed the pooch and we will just have to live with the consequences.
Gary Neidhardt on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 4:03 pm
The glaciers were receding thousands of years ago. The water levels have gone up hundreds of feet long before man built at Edsel. Blaming man for all that activity is only for the climate myrmidons and zealots that want government to be their god.
sheryl c on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 5:21 pm
Part of the problem is the some of climate change deniers are fundamental Christians and to them science has always been the enemy.To reach them you have to use the bible. The effects are in the bible if you know where to look.
sheryl c on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 5:25 pm
To further explain what I mean by global warming being in the bible. Revelation 16: 8 Next, the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was given power to scorch the people with fire. 9 And the people were scorched by intense heat, and they cursed the name of God, who had authority over these plagues; yet they did not repent and give Him glory. IT says something is poured over the sun (in some translations) or on which means something is added to the air to cause the sun to feel more intense. It is the air because to someone of that time period that is what it would look like if you added pollution to the air and made the sun hotter.They would not have known that the sun was in outer space. This is but one example of how you can reach those who do not trust science.
keith on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 5:28 pm
Everybody; do what you can. Buy an electric car or cut down on meat or go vegetarian or go vegan or plant a tree or ten or leave a section of your yard go wild, or take an eco vacation. Step up your game and don’t worry about the troglodytes – they are sewing discord – don’t buy it.
Attilathehun on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 5:30 pm
A BS degree stands for Bull Sh!t
An MS degree stands for More Sh!t
And a Phd means Piled Higher and Deeper
Spock on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 5:38 pm
smart asses the earth was here before us and will be here well after us we are just one small part the earths life and will soon be forgotten so relax and enjoy the ride nothing we do will change it
peakyeast on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 5:49 pm
@attila: Which means you don’t have shit?
Apneaman on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 6:34 pm
Attilathedumb, the reason we know why and how is because of the EVIDENCE. No one needs a degree to understand the scientific method or evidence, just a semi functional brain. How sad for you.
What is the “scientific method”?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.”
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
Scientific Theory?
“A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.
Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community’s view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, biology has the Theory of Evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory, and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher “rank” (contrary to the belief that “theories” become “laws” or “facts” over time).
“Theory” is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things depending on the context and who is using it. While in everyday speech anything that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a “theory”, a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe’s guesswork. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanatory framework for a series of facts and observations that is testable and can be used to predict future observations.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
makati1 on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 6:51 pm
Cheryl, there is no way to reach religious nuts. The indoctrination goes too deep. Best to ignore them. They will go away when the SHTF.
Shooting Game on Sun, 4th Dec 2016 11:03 pm
Wow the intolerance shown by liberals of an opposing view is unbelievable… I thought the progressives were the “tolerant and accepting” side.
Davy on Mon, 5th Dec 2016 6:17 am
What good is the scientific method if the sapience to choose what should be used and rejected is not there? The scientific method is little better than skydaddies and probably does as much damage. Science is just another religion preaching its own set of values and recommendations. Skydaddies abound even among those who bitch, moan, and complain about them. Atheist are no better being so sure of themselves and high and mighty. I have never met a humble atheist. With what is ahead we all better find some humility to admit failure instead of blame and complain.
That said all we have is the scientific process to guide us in those areas where science can guide us. We need to leave science out of some areas and let traditional human values once again guide us. Look where science has taken our traditional relationships of the sexes, family, and community. We are a mess as a species and science is just as much to blame as grotesque skydaddies. If you can’t handle the truth then don’t go there. This can be said about our knowledge, technology, and the innovation of both in science. We are a failed species and it is science that is smack in the middle of that failure.
Apneaman on Mon, 5th Dec 2016 6:29 pm
Davy, the scientific method is a human created set of tools, imperfect, but the best we ever came up with to discern the truth of the natural world. Like a hammer it is value free. Like every thing in the universe it’s value free. The results of science are descriptive not prescriptive. It’s the humans who decide what to do with them – same as with the hammer one can build shelter for their family with it or make the hammer head bigger and put it on a longer handle and cave your competitors fucking head in with it.
I find that people, like the wizard Greer for example, who are angry and disappointed in “science” are confusing the promises of humans with science, which cannot make promises anymore than the hammer can.
The humans in question are a combination of big industry/money people and the legitimizers of the status quo: economists, politicians, and the media.
Especially the media. Don’t get made at science because you don’t have your flying car. Blame the reporter and editor of that 1950 something issue of Popular Mechanics.
The public is guilty too for believing in what they want to and not having one ounce of genuine skepticism. The bullshitting has been getting worse every year for the last 35-40 years and the public keep falling for it.
This bit says it all about the bullshitting media and the unquestioning public.
“John Oliver discusses how and why media outlets so often report untrue or incomplete information as science.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw
Science says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-eclUz-RYI
Apneaman on Mon, 5th Dec 2016 6:34 pm
Ok kids. Gather around for today’s science question.
When permafrost melts, what happens to all that stored carbon?
“The Arctic carbon reservoir locked in the Siberian permafrost has the potential to lead to massive emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere,” said study co-author Francesco Muschitiello”
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-permafrost-carbon.html
recovery trade on Sun, 19th Mar 2017 9:56 pm
I’ve learn several excellent stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much attempt you set to create this sort of magnificent informative web site.