Posted on 12/26/2014 12:11:20 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Doom message version 48.2a (subclause i) has been released.
Forget methane clathrate pits, now extra plant growth (blame CO2) could cause global soil to unleash massive amounts of carbon.
Carbon dioxide (aka “pollution”) feeds plants. This is bad (didn’t you know?). An all new “first” computer model with plants, soil, and fungus, warns us that more plants could get soil microbes excited which might break down more soil carbon and release it into the air. Disaster! It’s a could-be-might-be-catastrophe. (At least until paragraph 6 — see that caveat below).
In the meantime this is is so big, it’s practically nuclear — the model reports that it could set off a “chain reaction”:
An increase in human-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could initiate a chain reaction between plants and microorganisms that would unsettle one of the largest carbon reservoirs on the planet — soil.
Did you know there is twice as much CO2, carbon in the soil as there is in Earths whole atmosphere?
Researchers based at Princeton University report in the journal Nature Climate Change that the carbon in soil — which contains twice the amount of carbon in all plants and Earth’s atmosphere combined — could become increasingly volatile as people add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, largely because of increased plant growth. The researchers developed the first computer model to show at a global scale the complex interaction between carbon, plants and soil, which includes numerous bacteria, fungi, minerals and carbon compounds that respond in complex ways to temperature, moisture and the carbon that plants contribute to soil.
(The “first”? David Evans tells me FullCAM — the Australian carbon accounting model he developed, did this on an Australian scale years ago, and they they weren’t the first then).
Note the politically correct permitted phrasing next:
Although a greenhouse gas and pollutant, carbon dioxide also supports plant growth.
So after 500 million years of evolution of carbon based life-forms, carbon dioxide is first and foremost a greenhouse gas, secondly it’s a pollutant, but but… it does… “support” plant growth. (Could we make that weaker? Plants need CO2 so desperately that they suck out all the stuff they can get before morning tea, then they slop growing – and the way to describe this is that CO2 “supports” them – like a tomato stake, right?)
As trees and other vegetation flourish in a carbon dioxide-rich future, their roots could stimulate microbial activity in soil that in turn accelerates the decomposition of soil carbon and its release into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the researchers found.
Note the researchers found a “could”.
The next two paragraphs tell us how useful this work is — not for predicting the natural world necessarily — but for countering that annoying idea that plants might be a net sink of carbon:
This effect counters current key projections regarding Earth’s future carbon cycle, particularly that greater plant growth could offset carbon dioxide emissions as flora take up more of the gas, said first author Benjamin Sulman, who conducted the modeling work as a postdoctoral researcher at the Princeton Environmental Institute.
“You should not count on getting more carbon storage in the soil just because tree growth is increasing,” said Sulman, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at Indiana University.
Then there’s the killer caveat (maybe most readers won’t get this far). This is a doozy:
On the other hand, microbial activity initiated by root growth could lock carbon onto mineral particles and protect it from decomposition, which would increase long-term storage of carbon in soils, the researchers report.
So more plants with more roots will definitely cause bacteria to release more CO2 except if they don’t.
But seriously, this is a really good model. It’s complex, it must be right:
Whether carbon emissions from soil rise or fall, the researchers’ model depicts an intricate soil-carbon system that contrasts starkly with existing models that portray soil as a simple carbon repository, Sulman said. An oversimplified perception of the soil carbon cycle has left scientists with a glaring uncertainty as to whether soil would help mitigate future carbon dioxide levels — or make them worse, Sulman said.
How lucky we are that the glaring uncertainty is resolved… I mean, might-be could-be settled.
The researchers’ soil-carbon cycle model has been integrated into the global land model used for climate simulations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) located on Princeton’s Forrestal Campus.
Settled enough for NOAA – give us another grant.
Settled enough for Nature Climate Change.
Sulman, et al (2014) Microbe-driven turnover offsets mineral-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO2. Nature Climate Change; 4 (12): 1099 DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2436
These people are insane or fraudsters of the highest order. Or both.
What they aren’t is real scientists...
Oh NOOOOO!!! We’re all going to die!
Fixed it.
It must be a disaster being a lib. I can’t imagine being as torqued in the brain as those people seem to be.
Now they really look desperate.
So, it’s OK to cut all the trees down then?
Farmers and Mules Hit Hardest! *SMIRK*
What a bunch of crap.
Soiled model???
Good. Been feeling a might peckish lately. Probably a carbon deficiency.
I'm SO sad...
oh yeah
LOL!
“The researchers developed the first computer model to show at a global scale the complex interaction between carbon, plants and soil, which includes numerous bacteria, fungi, minerals and carbon compounds that respond in complex ways to temperature, moisture and the carbon that plants contribute to soil.”
Oh look here, another “computer model”.
Half baked science usually tastes pretty bad.
Ohhh No! We’re all going to die in our own worldwide vegetarian paradise!
“What they aren’t is real scientists...”
This is reminiscent of the sports journalists and the Rush and Donovan McNabb episode.
If you recall Rush made the observation that so many of the sports reporters were so “desirous” (as Rush put it) to see a black quarterback (McNabb) succeed that they overlooked all his weaknesses as a quarterback and the fact that he was mediocre at best.
The reason those journalists acted that way is because they wanted a specific aspect of their world view (i.e. blacks are as “smart” as whites) validated and so they selectively (or even made up) evidence that would bolster their view.
The same is happening with “global warming” (and many other areas as well). So many people, including so called scientists, have been so brainwashed (by environazis) in believing that man is the scourge of the planet, that they are very “desirous” to prove that. And will selectively pick or fabricate any data or argument to bolster that view.
It goes to show how potent our belief systems are.
Global Warming on Free Republic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.