Earth follows the warming: soils add 100 million tons of CO2 per year

From the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory:

Soils release more carbon dioxide as globe warms

The Database and Google Earth
The researchers overlaid the soil respiration database — which is openly available for the scientific community to add to — on Google Earth.

COLLEGE PARK, Md. – Twenty years of field studies reveal that as the Earth has gotten warmer, plants and microbes in the soil have given off more carbon dioxide. So-called soil respiration has increased about one-tenth of 1 percent per year since 1989, according to an analysis of past studies in today’s issue of Nature.

The scientists also calculated the total amount of carbon dioxide flowing from soils, which is about 10-15 percent higher than previous measurements. That number — about 98 petagrams of carbon a year (or 98 billion metric tons) — will help scientists build a better overall model of how carbon in its many forms cycles throughout the Earth. Understanding soil respiration is central to understanding how the global carbon cycle affects climate.

“There’s a big pulse of carbon dioxide coming off of the surface of the soil everywhere in the world,” said ecologist Ben Bond-Lamberty of the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. “We weren’t sure if we’d be able to measure it going into this analysis, but we did find a response to temperature.”

The increase in carbon dioxide given off by soils — about 0.1 petagram (100 million metric tons) per year since 1989 — won’t contribute to the greenhouse effect unless it comes from carbon that had been locked away out of the system for a long time, such as in Arctic tundra. This analysis could not distinguish whether the carbon was coming from old stores or from vegetation growing faster due to a warmer climate. But other lines of evidence suggest warming is unlocking old carbon, said Bond-Lamberty, so it will be important to determine the sources of extra carbon.

The Opposite of Photosynthesis

Plants are famous for photosynthesis, the process that stores energy in sugars built from carbon dioxide and water. Photosynthesis produces the oxygen we breathe as a byproduct. But plants also use oxygen and release carbon dioxide in the same manner that people and animals do. Soil respiration includes carbon dioxide from both plants and soil microbes, and is a major component of the global carbon cycle.

Theoretically, the biochemical reactions that plants and soil microbes engage in to produce carbon dioxide suggest that higher temperatures should result in more carbon dioxide being released. But unlike the amount of sunlight reaching Earth, soil respiration can’t be measured from space and can’t yet be simulated effectively with computer models.

So, the researchers turned to previous studies to see if they could quantify changes in global soil respiration. PNNL’s Bond-Lamberty and his colleague Allison Thomson, working at the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md., examined 439 soil respiration studies published between 1989 and 2008.

They compiled data about how much carbon dioxide has leaked from plants and microbes in soil in an openly available database. To maintain consistency, they selected only data that scientists collected via the now-standard methods of gas chromatography and infrared gas analysis. The duo compared 1,434 soil carbon data points from the studies with temperature and precipitation data in the geographic regions from other climate research databases.

After subjecting their comparisons to statistical analysis, the researchers found that the total amount of carbon dioxide being emitted from soil in 2008 was more than in 1989. In addition, the rise in global temperatures correlated with the rise in global carbon flux. However, they did not find a similar relation between precipitation and carbon.

Zooming In

Previous climate change research shows that Arctic zones have a lot more carbon locked away than other regions. Using the complete set of data collected from the studies, the team estimated that the carbon released in northern — also called boreal — and Arctic regions rose by about 7 percent; in temperate regions by about 2 percent; and in tropical regions by about 3 percent, showing a trend consistent with other work.

The researchers wanted to know if their data could provide more detailed information about each region. So they broke down the complete data set by regional climates and re-examined the smaller groups of data using different statistical methods. The regional data from the temperate and tropical climates produced results consistent with other results, such as more carbon being released at higher temperatures, but the boreal-Arctic climate data did not. In addition, removing only 10 percent of the boreal-Arctic data points was enough to invalidate the statistical significance of the boreal-Arctic result. Together, the results support the idea that more boreal data on regional climates is needed to reach statistical relevance.

“We identified an area where we need to do more work,” said Thomson.

The authors designed the database so that other researchers could contribute to it. The paper describing the database can be found online in Biogeosciences.


Reference: Bond-Lamberty and Thomson, 2010. Temperature-associated increases in the global soil respiration record, Nature March 25, 2009, doi:10.1038/nature08930.

This research was supported by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research within the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

142 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Wondering Aloud
March 25, 2010 9:10 pm

“The increase in carbon dioxide given off by soils — about 0.1 petagram (100 million metric tons) per year since 1989 — won’t contribute to the greenhouse effect unless it comes from carbon that had been locked away out of the system for a long time”
Does this statement make any logical sense at all? Is he claiming that somehow carbon dioxide molecules released from soil somehow know better than to absorb radiation? Have they been specially trained to be aware of environmental issues?

anna v
March 25, 2010 9:10 pm

You can watch earth breathing in the AIRS CO2 animation

AlexB
March 25, 2010 9:26 pm

“Plants are famous for photosynthesis”
Yes of course, when I think of plants the first thing I think is photosynthesis… these guys need a holiday.

Nick Stokes
March 25, 2010 9:27 pm

100 million tons CO2 per year is equivalent to burning about 30 million tons C. We burn about 300 times more than that in fossil fuel.

Honest ABE
March 25, 2010 9:27 pm

So if the soil is unlocking “old carbon” then wouldn’t that be indistinguishable from the “human signal” of carbon from fossil fuels?
I believe I’ve made this same argument to global warming advocates…

George Turner
March 25, 2010 9:37 pm

Wondering aloud
I was wondering the same thing. Apparently only really old carbon is active in the infrared spectrum, probably because it still has bits of crud attached to its protons.

March 25, 2010 9:38 pm

Wondering Aloud (21:10:25) :
“The increase in carbon dioxide given off by soils — about 0.1 petagram (100 million metric tons) per year since 1989 — won’t contribute to the greenhouse effect unless it comes from carbon that had been locked away out of the system for a long time”
Does this statement make any logical sense at all? Is he claiming that somehow carbon dioxide molecules released from soil somehow know better than to absorb radiation? Have they been specially trained to be aware of environmental issues?
——-
REPLY: I understand what they are trying to say: carbon that has been fixed “recently” (not as in the case of peat, or coal) is released and then reabsorbed by green plants and some photosynthetic bacteria, becoming fixed again. This is standard stuff in the carbon cycle.
The underlying theory is that, by dredging up ancient carbon (fixed by plants that eventually became coal, for example) adds more carbon dioxide than the planet can handle through this natural cycle.
The system is far more complex than that, as higher carbon dioxide levels lead to more photosynthesis and higher tree growth etc. I have yet to read a really good accounting of the modern-era carbon cycle that brings in the fossil carbon input without all sorts of hysteria tacked on!! Very frustrating.

BC Bob
March 25, 2010 9:38 pm

Isn’t it amazing what researchers find when it relates to climate change? No matter what, you can rest assured that it’s all bad, and that further research is required.
Climate change has been the greatest boon to research ever invented. All researchers in just about every field can study the effects of climate change. There’s simply no end to the possibilities. No wonder they dare not kill the goose who lays the golden egg- it’s just to good to be true!

March 25, 2010 9:39 pm

Stone cold provery of Gaia. Whar’s muh bong?

Rob H
March 25, 2010 9:41 pm

Effect of warming. More CO2 released from soil & plants grow faster in warmer weather. Net effect: Zero.

Steve Goddard
March 25, 2010 9:44 pm

This press release sounds like typical BS from publicity hounds. Wood’s Hole has been calculating greater than 100 petagrams since 2004.
http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/GlobalCarbonCycle.gif
Modified: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:38:04 PM
Additionally, the precision they claim is far beyond the accuracy of their measurements. There is no way they can measure CO2 output within one tenth of a percent, which is why Woods Hole rounds their numbers off to two decimal places.

COLLEGE PARK, Md. – Twenty years of field studies reveal that as the Earth has gotten warmer, plants and microbes in the soil have given off more carbon dioxide. So-called soil respiration has increased about one-tenth of 1 percent per year since 1989, according to an analysis of past studies in today’s issue of Nature.

DesertYote
March 25, 2010 9:46 pm

Oh come on. This is news? Metabolic rates are related to temperature, so higher temps, more CO2 released, but also more CO2 consumed. Anyone who has maintained biotype aquariums would know this.

Ray
March 25, 2010 9:49 pm

Funny how nature works… in winter, when the plants are dormant and the soil is frozen, no CO2 is emitted from the soil, but in summer, when plants need lots of CO2 to grow, the soil provides CO2 to help them.
There must be an imbalance in the system since there is more dirt in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern hemisphere. So, when it is winter in the Norhtern hemisphere the global CO2 must be smaller.

Lawrie Ayres
March 25, 2010 9:49 pm

Wondering Aloud
I thought the same. AGW causes warming. Warming causes CO2 to be released from soils. CO2 is a well known cause of AGW. Is this the tipping point? No. The soil CO2 is different to burnt coal CO2. Or does it mean that nature (the real deal) not the journal has everything under control?
It may mean that sequestration of CO2 in soils or trees for that matter as a means of reducing ACO2 is a useless exercise. WWF is trying to lock up 40% of the Amazon rain forrest and pick up 60 billion $s in carbon offsets. That may not work with this latset research.
Can a sharper mind than mine explain, please?

Ray
March 25, 2010 9:52 pm

“After subjecting their comparisons to statistical analysis,…”
I hope it’s not Mannian statistics!

jorgekafkazar
March 25, 2010 9:52 pm

George Turner (21:37:45) : “I was wondering the same thing. Apparently only really old carbon is active in the infrared spectrum, probably because it still has bits of crud attached to its protons.”
You mean CRU-dons?

fhsiv
March 25, 2010 9:59 pm

These guys are really grasping at straws!
“There’s a big pulse of carbon dioxide coming off of the surface of the soil everywhere in the world,” Ya think? Wow, this must be something new! And what a surprise that their most recent, cutting edge analysis shows that there has been a recent increase. I will never cease to be amazed by the observation powers of the climate scientist!
I’d like to be the first to propose a geo-engineering fix to correct this distrurbing trend. Lets call it ‘Pave ‘n Save’. We’ll just prevent the respiration of those pesky soils by sealing them off with a nice liitle coating of asphalt.
By the way, does the sun still rise in the east?

March 25, 2010 9:59 pm

I have yet to read a really good accounting of the modern-era carbon cycle that brings in the fossil carbon input without all sorts of hysteria tacked on!! Very frustrating.>>
Have you looked at this one?
http://www.antti-roine.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=73

p.g.sharrow "PG"
March 25, 2010 10:02 pm

Almost any dumb dirt farmer could have told them that. This collage education stuff must be hard on the brain.

pat
March 25, 2010 10:07 pm

far too much money in CAGW ‘research’.
the following is the most honest expose of the planned CO2 Bubble, written prior to bloomberg attaching half a dozen writers/editors to every CAGW ‘story’ to ensure ‘political correctness’. if we allow this, at least our eyes are wide open this time. send it to everyone u know:
4 Dec 2009: Bloomberg: Lisa Kassenaar: Carbon Capitalists Warming to Climate Market Using Derivatives
Subprime Carbon
http://www.bloomberg.com.au/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M

Luke
March 25, 2010 10:13 pm

I’m confused about why locking CO2 in the Amazon wouldn’t work. Yes, I can see how we need to know the Amazon overall consumes more carbon than it releases. But why would we think a rainforest isn’t a net sequesterer (if that’s a word) of carbon? Isn’t that what fossil fuels are: carbon sequestered into plants? Where else to hydrocarbons come from if not natural sequestration?

Alan F
March 25, 2010 10:18 pm

So now they’ll hoist this flag up as their definitive proof of steady warming and see if anyone salutes.

jorgekafkazar
March 25, 2010 10:19 pm

DesertYote (21:46:21) : “…This is news? Metabolic rates are related to temperature, so higher temps, more CO2 released, but also more CO2 consumed. Anyone who has maintained biotype aquariums would know this.”
But the consensus of six universities’ new aquarium computer models reveals a consensus that the robust unprecedented time for action tipping point is settled worse than we thought.
[sarcoff]

Doug in Seattle
March 25, 2010 10:28 pm

Without AGW fear mongering this study would be regarded as an interesting exercise in number crunching with little or applicability to the real world.

NickB.
March 25, 2010 10:45 pm

I’m not the first one to mention it but if plants are taking in more CO2 shouldn’t it be expected that they’d crap more out too?
People get paid for this?
Anyone want to bet that from a % standpoint this change in respiration output of CO2 roughly coincides with the increasing atmospheric content of CO2?
There is absolutely no temperature based explanation given… or even looked for it appears. Find a correlation, attribute to AGW, get grant money… rinse, repeat. My kid’s school had better science projects than these jokers are coming up with.
How about this for correlation, the temperature anomalies of a surface station rise when you put an asphalt parking lot next to it. Must be global warming… right?

1 2 3 6