Fixing the nitrogen cycle in climate modeling

From a press release of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Key new ingredient in climate model refines global predictions

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/climate/images/nitrogencycle.jpg
Nitrogen cycle - image courtesy UCAR

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Oct. 9, 2009 — For the first time, climate scientists from across the country have successfully incorporated the nitrogen cycle into global simulations for climate change, questioning previous assumptions regarding carbon feedback and potentially helping to refine model forecasts about global warming.

The results of the experiment at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are published in the current issue of Biogeosciences. They illustrate the complexity of climate modeling by demonstrating how natural processes still have a strong effect on the carbon cycle and climate simulations. In this case, scientists found that the rate of climate change over the next century could be higher than previously anticipated when the requirement of plant nutrients are included in the climate model.

ORNL’s Peter Thornton, lead author of the paper, describes the inclusion of these processes as a necessary step to improve the accuracy of climate change assessments.

“We’ve shown that if all of the global modeling groups were to include some kind of nutrient dynamics, the range of model predictions would shrink because of the constraining effects of the carbon nutrient limitations, even though it’s a more complex model.”

To date, climate models ignored the nutrient requirements for new vegetation growth, assuming that all plants on earth had access to as much “plant food” as they needed. But by taking the natural demand for nutrients into account, the authors have shown that the stimulation of plant growth over the coming century may be two to three times smaller than previously predicted. Since less growth implies less CO2 absorbed by vegetation, the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are expected to increase.

However, this reduction in growth is partially offset by another effect on the nitrogen cycle: an increase in the availability of nutrients resulting from an accelerated rate of decomposition – the rotting of dead plants and other organic matter – that occurs with a rise in temperature.

Combining these two effects, the authors discovered that the increased availability of nutrients from more rapid decomposition did not counterbalance the reduced level of plant growth calculated by natural nutrient limitations; therefore less new growth and higher atmospheric CO¬2 concentrations are expected.

The study’s author list, which consists of scientists from eight different institutions around the U.S. including ORNL, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory, and several research universities, exemplifies the broad expertise required to engage in the multidisciplinary field that is global climate modeling.

“In order to do these experiments in the climate system model, expertise is needed in the nitrogen cycle, but there is also a need for climate modeling expertise, the ocean has to be involved properly, the atmospheric chemistry . . . and then there are a lot of observations that have been used to parameterize the model,” said Thornton, who works in ORNL’s Environmental Sciences Division.

ORNL’s Peter Thornton is helping climate scientists incorporate the nitrogen cycle into global simulations for climate change.

“The biggest challenge has been bridging this multidisciplinary gap and demonstrating to the very broad range of climate scientists who range everywhere from cloud dynamicists to deep ocean circulation specialists that [incorporating the nitrogen cycle] is a worthwhile and useful approach.”

The ability to handle the increase in complexities of these models was facilitated by the capabilities of ORNL’s Leadership Computing Facility, which currently houses the world’s fastest supercomputer for civilian research. Jim Hack, director of the National Center for Computational Sciences, emphasizes that Thornton and his team were not limited by computational resources in the construction of his model. “It’s one of the laboratory competencies, so we want to make sure we enable leadership science,” he said.

This breakthrough is one more step toward a more realistic prediction for the future of the earth’s climate. Nevertheless, potentially significant processes and dynamics are still missing from the simulations. Thornton also stresses the importance of long-term observation so scientists can better understand and model these processes.

A 15-year study of the role nitrogen plays in plant nutrition at Harvard Forest was an important observational source used to test their mathematical representation of the nitrogen cycle–a long experiment by any standards, but still an experiment that, according to Thornton, could improve the accuracy of the simulation if conducted even longer.

Other shortcomings of climate simulations include the disregard of changing vegetation patterns due to human land use and potential shifts in types of vegetation that might occur under a changing climate, although both topics are the focus of ongoing studies.

The research was funded by the DOE Office of Science. Additional resources were contributed by NASA Earth Science Enterprise, Terrestrial Ecology Program; National Center for Atmospheric Research through the NCAR Community Climate System Modeling program and the NCAR Biogeosciences program.

UT-Battelle manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy.

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

118 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Retired Engineer
October 12, 2009 6:02 pm

If the current models don’t work, predicting changes that have not happened, and the ‘new’ model says things will change even faster, what have they accomplished?

Adam from Kansas
October 12, 2009 6:11 pm

Plant Growth smaller than predicted from CO2 I assume? Have they not read the Plantsneedco2.org website?
Nice to know they’re taking in other factors now, now what about ocean cycles and decreased solar output (since the Sun puts heat energy into the water)?
As for what’s expected over the next few months at least, my grandmother heard on the Weather Channel that Wichita had its coldest start to October ever, the so-called El Nino is turning out to be a joke warm weather-wise.

kim
October 12, 2009 6:17 pm

Who’s surprised; they’ve found another previously unaccounted for factor in climate regulation. They’ve got a few more yet to find.
I thought phosphates were the critical resource. I know that not all plants are CO2 limited.
============================================

Pamela Gray
October 12, 2009 6:18 pm

Oh my goodness. KISS!
Colder oceans, dryer colder land, less vegetation (or more frozen veggies, take your pick). Warmer ocean, wetter warmer land, more vegetation (or more zuchini—EEYYYYYYYYHHHHHHHH!, take your pick).
Why is this so hard to understand?

Pamela Gray
October 12, 2009 6:21 pm

September in the Willamette Valley during El Nino years: No matter how hot it is, drive with your windows up and never stop at stop lights or signs. Also never park in a church parking lot. If you do not follow these instructions, by the time you get home, your car will be stuffed with zuchini and you will be dead from zuchini suffocation.

SOYLENT GREEN
October 12, 2009 6:24 pm

The scientific jig is up on CO2. The govt. wants another eco-boogieman to cover the fact that they are just going to tax us into serfdom. Have Oak Ridge whip something up for us, will you?

October 12, 2009 6:30 pm

However, this reduction in growth is partially offset by another effect on the nitrogen cycle: an increase in the availability of nutrients resulting from an accelerated rate of decomposition – the rotting of dead plants and other organic matter – that occurs with a rise in temperature.

So the whole theory depends on temperature rising? This seems like a big hole in the theory using predigested conclusions. Burp!

J.Hansford
October 12, 2009 6:31 pm

….. but the science is settled though. Some journalists were just telling me just the other day, that it was…
Anyway, sarcasm aside. It is good to see scientists improving their models. Now if only they could improve their science also….

October 12, 2009 6:32 pm

It was more than 20 below C last night in most of Alberta. The climate may be warming but the weather sure is cold….

Pamela Gray
October 12, 2009 6:33 pm

September on the West coast from Mexico border to Canadian border during El Nino years: Drink up. The wine is in the caskets and everybody can get drunk on a dime. Bit o’ advice: Men should drink only white wine, women should drink the darkest red wine they can find. With chocolate.

Ed Snack
October 12, 2009 6:39 pm

I think what they are saying is that current models assume that the higher CO2 concentrations will increase plant growth linearly with CO2 concentration. This research however implies that the growth will be less than that already assumed because of limitations in other nutrients. One test, do the current models make that increased update assumption, can anyone advise ?

Pamela Gray
October 12, 2009 6:42 pm

October during La Nina flip along the west coast: Pumpkin patches are non-existent (all local pumpkins are frozen and imported pumpkins cost more than a good steak), and Halloween costumes come with long underwear as standard equipment. Bobbing for apples is done with an ice pick and the Halloween punch is served with an ice cream scoop.

October 12, 2009 6:45 pm

Ed Snack,
A model isn’t necessary. This is from the real world: click

Pamela Gray
October 12, 2009 6:46 pm

There is no such thing as growing or decaying vegetation in my back yard right now. All vegetation is frozen solid. No need for nitrogen.
So……what was that about nitrogen? But I am just a pot hole…….ssssoooooo……okay by now! (Gawd I love that commercial)

MattN
October 12, 2009 6:48 pm

Lemme guess….its worse than we thought…..

October 12, 2009 6:50 pm

What, these guys have SECURE GUMMIT JOBS producing JUNK like this.
I’d present this to my Jr. High Science students, but they are too smart for that. The FIRST thing they’d say is, “This PRESUMES CO2 REALLY DRIVES TEMPERATURES UP!!!”
Sorry if I’m bitter, but with 28 F tonight in Minnesocold, and 4″ of “GoreBull Warming” on the ground, I’m not in a mood to tolerate fools any longer.

George Tobin
October 12, 2009 6:50 pm

Sounds like they have tiptoed up the kinds of land use issues Roger Pielke Sr has been arguing for including in modeling assumptions for years.
I guess you get absolution from committing the heresy of admitting there’s more to it than CO2 by mumbling something about maybe “worse than we thought” to compensate.

Pamela Gray
October 12, 2009 6:51 pm

This is just too easy!!!!

Kum Dollison
October 12, 2009 6:52 pm

The Sahel is turning green. The tropics are exploding with new growth. Crops are setting records.
Warm = more vegetation
More vegetation = more large “grazers.”
More large grazers = more nitrogen (manure, urea)
Then, there are the nitrogen-fixing plants
I think they’re getting “out in the weeds” with this one. I’ll wait for the Ag community to weigh in.

Pamela Gray
October 12, 2009 6:52 pm

MattN I have to tell you that I love what you write. Too funny!

a jones
October 12, 2009 6:53 pm

Yes.
This bit of balderdash is based on a theoretical idea that if CO2 and warmth increase plant growth will be limited by nutrient supply, notably water and nitrogen. It is only possible to test this under controlled conditions not in the field, and all such tests have shown it to be wrong. At higher CO2 levels plants need and use less nitrogen and water. Even so whilst discredited it still turns up today sometimes: usually with trees.
So the whole premise is based on a canard and ignores comprehensive established research. From this thoroughly debunked idea they then develop a new suggestion, I would not even call it a supposition, involving the nitrogen cycle, complex modelling tehniques, all with extensive caveats: to show how complicated it all is and is going to be.
Oh and they also call for more funding not only for this but for forestry observation despite the fact that the latter cannot tell you much and certainly hasn’t up till now: so more time and more funding are obviously needed.
What I think in the USA you call a boondoggle? or have I mixed up my terminology?.
Kindest Regards

Layne Blanchard
October 12, 2009 7:02 pm

Indigenous vegetation is acutely tuned to local environment. That which grows in my yard needs no assistance whatsoever to grow like a…… well, like a weed. When I finally rip the little sucker out of my yard, it has a root system 4 times the size of the plant.
So, via natural selection, natural vegetation does a great job of growing with unbridled fervor, thank you very much. It isn’t starving.
Oh, and Pamela, I’m hoarding my Ken Wright Pinot AND the chocolate.

Bill in Vigo
October 12, 2009 7:06 pm

It appears to me that they seem to be basing their updated new theory on the results of their old already diverging from the collected data. I also notice that any error found in data will always lead to more warming. Any new study from selected connected agencies will always find that it is faster and worse than previously thought. Just a thought, if the increased decomposition is dependent on warmer temps, keep in mind that increase in moisture is also necessary to increase decomposition. The problem is that the empirical data isn’t showing warming. there may be a reduction of growth rate of vegetation but it appears that it might be due to cooler shorter growing seasons. I have little faith in this study, in my small uneducated mind there are to many questions that haven’t been answered. To much depends on conditions being similar to if this happens then this will happen. It is hard to assume that this type of finding depending on things that might happen should be counted as correct.
just my two cents
Bill Derryberry

Bob Edelman
October 12, 2009 7:06 pm

Pamela,
We got it the first time – it’s cold in Oregon. Now please find another blog to hijack.

John F. Hultquist
October 12, 2009 7:07 pm

Pamela Gray (18:21:04) : zucchini
My choice is yellow crook-neck, but I digress.
If everyone was required to put 10% of their land in zucchini would that solve the AGW problem or would all plants die as CO2 was depleted from the atmosphere?
And back on topic: When you start your model building exercise with the wrong assumption it is not possible to come out with a sensible answer. If the smart folks at Oak Ridge would investigate the role of CO2 in its ghg-sense they might actually contribute something to climate science.

1 2 3 5