Yes, somehow, more plants growing due to increased CO2 will cause more carbon dioxide in a vicious cycle. Notice three things about this study: 1. The word “could” 2. “modeling work”. 3. Lack of any paleo reference to such an event in Earth’s past during higher periods of CO2.
From Princeton: Dirty pool: Soil’s large carbon stores could be freed by increased CO2, plant growth
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.
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.
Although a greenhouse gas and pollutant, carbon dioxide also supports plant growth. 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.
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.
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.
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.
“The goal was to take that very simple model and add some of the most important missing processes,” Sulman said. “The main interactions between roots and soil are important and shouldn’t be ignored. Root growth and activity are such important drivers of what goes on in the soil, and knowing what the roots are doing could be an important part of understanding what the soil will be doing.”
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.
###
Benjamin N. Sulman, Richard P. Phillips, A. Christopher Oishi, Elena Shevliakova, and Stephen W. Pacala. 2014. Microbe-driven turnover offsets mineral-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO2. Nature Climate Change. Article published in December 2014 print edition. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2436
The work was supported by grants from NOAA (grant no. NA08OAR4320752); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (grant no. 2011-67003-30373); and Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative sponsored by BP.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I read this via Yahooey’s prominent announcement; rubbish in so many ways.
I do hope that faux research claims follow these researchers throughout their careers.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Remind be never to send and of my grand kids to Princeton!
Oh my, what a waste of funds
Jo Nova does a nice job rubbishing this might-be could-be settled science.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/look-out-a-soil-model-says-more-plants-means-massive-carbon-stores-might-be-freed/#more-40045
Why do some terrible people add carbon to the soil? We must end this practice otherwise we are doomed.
“What Is Biochar?”
http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar
Christ(mas) Tur(k)ney from the Antarctic Summer Party has invented an method to make biochar out of wood waste in a big micro wave oven.
It’s called “green coke”.
http://carbonscape.com/
http://www.rexresearch.com/carbonscape/carbonscape.htm
Now what’s this?
Actually they do a great job of rubbishing it themselves
“Although a greenhouse gas and pollutant, carbon dioxide also supports plant growth”
This is interesting-
“The work was supported by grants from NOAA… and Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative sponsored by BP.”
BP. As in British Petroleum.
🙂
Not only ‘Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative’ sponsored by British Petroleum it are also sponsored by Ford Motor Company. Fossil fuel sponsorship is not that unusual for carbon mitigation schemes.
http://cmi.princeton.edu/about/sponsors.php
Big oil has been on the global warming bandwagon for some time now.
“BP. As in British Petroleum.”
Not any more! Now it’s Beyond Petroleum…sic!
Aaahh, we now have two-handed soil researchers in addition to two handed economists: “One 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”.
Which hand gets emphasized is a strong indication of the predisposition of the reporter/media organ.
“Are you scared, are you scared? Well you shouldn’t be!!! You’re on Scare Tactics”……
Might make things worse…might make things better. But what matters is that things COULD change. To paraphrase FDR; the only thing we have to fear is change itself.
I got as far as “Although a greenhouse gas and pollutant” ans stopped reading, CO2 is not a fecking pollutant. And it is not fecking “carbon” either, these people ought to be thought the correct terms before publishing their tripe.
Didn’t we get news this year that global agricultural output is a record levels? Funny that.
Here are some of the effects of co2 pollution. We must reduce these effects for the good of our greening biosphere. You know it makes sense so let’s act now!
It has occurred to me lately that one of the very strong potential drivers of the “climate” movement comes from nations and organizations that are trying to prop up national economies that are dependent on expensive oil. I think it’s entirely possible that money and pressure from Russia, Venezuela and other nations whose economic survival depend on $100/bbl oil have been pushing this AGW meme through their sycophants in the United Nations. Here at home our own progressive sympathizers picked up on the false narrative and became unwitting participants in the false narrative.
The begonia’s gonna get me!
For goodness sake, why not just admit CO2 is good for the planet and we humans. More food, more organisms, more life. What is there not to like?
These people need to get real flaming jobs.
Day of the Triffids
My thoughts exactly. The authors have stolen the idea from fiction to pretend it is reality on the assumption that truth is stranger than fiction. As for all the weasel words, I thought academic articles generally have a conclusion as part of normal scientific publication unless it is observations of some unusual medical case. Perhaps the sort of valuable research that should be undertaken is research on the climate researchers and their funders- investigate their personal ethics, look for underlying paranoid traits, look for patterns consistent with habitual liars, look for genuine leadership and ability to think independently.
Fraizer
After Albert Gore and An Inconvenient Load of Crapola most CAGW devotees rank ‘The Day Of The Triffids’ as the second best documentary EVAH. I am pretty sure that there is exceptional and peer reviewed literature, just like this study has, to support my documentary theory.
In the case of this earth shattering research it is not so much as “do not look at the green comet fireworks in the sky or go blind, as in the Triffids, but DO NOT LOOK AT THE SOIL It is VOLATILE and all the minerals,fungi, bacteria and carbon compounds are gonna unite, sorta like The Power Rangers Arch Enemies do, and they are gonna come get us and all our kids and their kids and their kids too. And the penguins and pandas and polar bears and parrots and parakeets and possums too.
And the Puppies and The Pussycats. Thank you Naomi.
So this really really terrible thing is sorta ..maybe.. might be.. likely.. you never know but it could.happen.. but then again it might not… let us repeat … then again it might not… so lets get out the grant forms and find the next …NGO or fossil fuel sucker …with deep concerns about the health of the planet and deeper pockets full of greenbacks and euros.
Makes you proud to be a BP customer.
CLIMATE SCIENCE ACADEMIA ROOLZ BABY!!!!!
Another possible large benefit of CO2 would be, if proven, warming of the planet.
The problem highlighted here seems to be the CO2 emissions not the AGW.
I can’t make the conection, literally I do fail, as per this kind of study.
You see AGW is not the cause of CO2 emissions, the other way around is what supposes to be the hypothesis.
Can someone explain it to me, please, how this study or paper can be associated with the AGW hypothesis…really I do fail to make that conection….unless if AGW not disputed anymore and accepted by default as a fact or a 97% consensus amongst all concerned!!!
cheers
Seeing CO2 emissions as a problem is the problem! 18 years with no global warming and CO2 going up quite robustly (in percentage of the atmosphere terms – like from 0.030% to 0.04%) kind of blows the whole hypothesis out of the water, surely to ?
The fact that the general population is brainwashed enough to believe all this BS is the problem. In my view it is an absolutely HUGE problem which will lead to MASSIVE problems down the road, when we will all wish all we had to worry about was “global warming”.
Maybe I missed your /sarc tag but I’m british and I grew up on sarcasm…
I am not sure what exactly you mean or what the main point of your reply to me is.
I was not sarcastic with my above comment.
I was not criticizing the study in question, simply trying to understand how someone can associate it with AGW.
In principle it seems like it can not be associated…….unless in the case when it must be evaluated and judged through the perception that it is as wrong as the AGW.
I do not think that to be a fair and a good aproach, if that is the case.
cheers
When environmental studies (Life Cycle Assessments or LCA) are done on Energy Crops such as mixed prairie grass, or switchgrass, one of the biggest benefits for carbon sequestration is addition of root matter to the soil which increases carbon storage. This storage of carbon in the soil is supposed to save us from climate change. But how can they now say that this a negative issue when the argument was that it was beneficial? It seems that this is another example of weather weirding. Increased CO2 causes both colder and warmer weather. That way, any outcome is explained by evil CO2.
Bob
They can say anything they like with a model. Nothing certain ok. Just a model.
I can come up with a model that will show cooling with increased CO2, it is just that as there is no funding for that sort of modeling it stops me from doing it.
Additional man made CO2 does not cause additional man made warming. End of story
Craziness indeed. According to IPCC, about 30% of the anthropogenic CO2 emitted has been taken up by terrestrial sinks: soil, plant litter, and living plants. So does this model agree with that observation, with the opposite only occurring at higher CO2? I could not tell from the abstract and the article is pay-walled.
” although a greenhouse gas and pollutant” end of story for me.
this one did it for me – “leaving scientists with a glaring uncertainty “- Classic Ivy League
You have to polish one a while before it will actually glare…
“could become increasingly volatile as people add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere”
We are resposible for such small fraction of the annual CO2 budget, it’s a joke and it’s effects cannot be detected, let alone quantified.
“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, . . .”
MODELS ARE NOT SCIENCE. And, yeah, like they know how to do this. Highly unlikely that they know even half the interactions, let alone cover all the variables. But, it does not a matter to them as long as they cobble it until it shows something bad will happen. Once they get there, they quit and publish.
Here is man’s co2 airborne fraction. It’s been decreasing for some unknown reason. Maybe their model will soon get to the bottom of the matter. 😊
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-03-31-ScreenShot20130331at4.19.41PM.png
……….plant a tree
You don’t even have to, they plant themselves, they’ve been doing it (apparently on the sly).
Gotta watch out for those sneaky plants 🙂
“They plant themselves”. Not news to anyone having to deal with the problem of woody plant thickening in rangelands!
Another of those studies “drawing more long bows than there were at bloody Agincourt” IMO
I remember from the early ‘oughts a number of scare stories about “super poison ivy” due driven by global warming.
“The researchers’ soil-carbon cycle model has been integrated into the global land model used for climate simulations” by NOAA et al.
Ah. Now we know the study is taxpayer-funded animal droppings.
“Although a greenhouse gas and pollutant, carbon dioxide also supports plant growth. 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.”
“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….”
More threats to life on earth from life on earth.
Here is what happened in tropical rain forests at a time of much higher co2. We are not even halfway there yet. Can you see the chain reaction?
I will not lose any sleep over the modelled study. Observations are king.
You know you are a national resource! (:
AS for soil microbes and decomposers, since the sustainability paradigm requires eliminating N, K, and P in chemical forms, then fertilizing fields with decomposed matter would be generating a lot of co2. Of course, there would never ever be enough – plus it would have to be shipped in unbelievably large quantities in trucks, instead of in neat little tanks.
When all this nonsense about CO2 being a pollutant finally comes to an end (hopefully in the next year or so), what will become of all of these useless and stupid studies? I do hope that a repository is created where all of the junk science of global warming is housed, so that future real scientists can go look at these papers and laugh at the ‘climate scientists’ of the time. Hopefully the current batch of ‘climate scientists will not be let off the hook and for as long as they live, they can be held up as an example of what goofiness they wrote.
Here is another stupid study I came across recently: (more modeling)
“Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission” by Katharine L Ricke and Ken Caldeira.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article
Off the hook? I fear we will not even get them on it. Look at Paul Ehrlich as an example.
I hypothesize that AGW will bring about Peace on Earth. Think I could get a nice cushy grant to study this?
I don’t find research like this a waste of time or taxpayer money unless we allow it to become the careers, the reason for existence, of a perpetual research group. One often finds that things are a bit more complicated than the first cut or simplified models suggest. However, the telling point here is that these suggested outcomes have never before been observed. Why do so many researchers ignore the enormous ensemble of natural experiments? They provide a sanity check to ideas that are credible as opposed to merely possible.
The division between science and science fiction has finally been breached, and it took public funding to achieve the goal.
More nonsense from those in the flock . Desperation ?
The flockers can’t see how stupid their claims have become.
Maybe they need new shepherds ? ….
So their model is right, the others are wrong. Surely they’ve done extensive, decades-long calibration (real-time, not model-time) of their model, right?