This could be a game changer. From the University of California, Irvine press release, a finding that suggests soil microbes have a negative feedback with temperature increase. This has broad implications for the amount of CO2 emitted estimated in climate models. It had been assumed that as temperature increased, microbes and fungii would increase their CO2 output. Globally, this microbiotic contribution is large. The amount of CO2 released from soils worldwide each year is estimated to be about 8-10 times greater than the amount released by humans.
This study shows that soil microbes won’t go into a an “overdrive” mode when soil temperature increases.
Soil microbes produce less atmospheric CO2 than expected with climate warming
Key players in the carbon cycle, they multiply slowly when overheated
— Irvine, Calif., April 26, 2010 —
The physiology of microbes living underground could determine the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from soil on a warmer Earth, according to a study published online this week in Nature Geoscience.
Researchers at UC Irvine, Colorado State University and the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies found that as global temperatures increase, microbes in soil become less efficient over time at converting carbon in soil into carbon dioxide, a key contributor to climate warming.
Microbes, in the form of bacteria and fungi, use carbon for energy to breathe, or respire, and to grow in size and in number. A model developed by the researchers shows microbes exhaling carbon dioxide furiously for a short period of time in a warmer environment, leaving less carbon to grow on. As warmer temperatures are maintained, the less efficient use of carbon by the microbes causes them to decrease in number, eventually resulting in less carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere.
“Microbes aren’t the destructive agents of global warming that scientists had previously believed,” said Steven Allison, assistant professor of ecology & evolutionary biology at UCI and lead author on the study. “Microbes function like humans: They take in carbon-based fuel and breathe out carbon dioxide. They are the engines that drive carbon cycling in soil. In a balanced environment, plants store carbon in the soil and microbes use that carbon to grow. The microbes then produce enzymes that convert soil carbon into atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
The study, “Soil-Carbon Response to Warming Dependent on Microbial Physiology,” contradicts the results of older models that assume microbes will continue to spew ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the climate continues to warm. The new simulations suggest that if microbial efficiency declines in a warmer world, carbon dioxide emissions will fall back to pre-warming levels, a pattern seen in field experiments. But if microbes manage to adapt to the warmth – for instance, through increased enzyme activity – emissions could intensify.
“When we developed a model based on the actual biology of soil microbes, we found that soil carbon may not be lost to the atmosphere as the climate warms,” said Matthew Wallenstein of the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University. “Conventional ecosystem models that didn’t include enzymes did not make the same predictions.”
Mark Bradford, assistant professor of terrestrial ecosystem ecology at Yale, said there is intense debate in the scientific community over whether the loss of soil carbon will contribute to global warming. “The challenge we have in predicting this is that the microbial processes causing this loss are poorly understood,” he said. “More research in this area will help reduce uncertainties in climate prediction.”
I dabble in soil micobial activity, in dry hot summer soils the microbe count is almost none, they estivate as do worms in cooler weather.
My soil CO2 meter can be set for 24hr or days of external reads, the variation in a cup of soil in a sealed container over even an hour is simply amazing.
the lunar cycle also affects the readings greatly.
carbon either from humates charcoal or as a limestone form, though some are degradable faster ie dolomite, is what the microbes need to make the Ph levels and cation exchange happen, without microbial action the soil is inert and useless to plants.ie desert.
chemical fetilizers are salt based and kill biota, the lime to neutral theory is also wrong, slightly acid soils are more effective at allowing the needed reactions to occur.
to the chap that has the limestone rock, the tree roots followed and forced cracks, the microbes followed the roots as they delved, and they sure can etch rock.
then as they make soils the worms and other biota move in also.
soils follow circadian ,lunar, seasonal cycles.
the idiots that pronounced this “news” need to go learn from the oldtimers!
I suggest Charles walters, W Albrecht, andC Loius Kervrans book on Biological Transmutation as being basic and mandatory reading.
ozspeaksup,
Thanks for your very interesting comment, pointing out that the lunar cycle greatly affects CO2 readings.
Prof Beck notes the same thing here [p. 276] and here. [click on “M” @bottom right corner to return to the index]. Also see here [see p. 8; diurnal changes in CO2].
Beck had a chart showing that CO2 peaks during various moon phases, but I can no longer find it. A lot of folks would be skeptical of the moon’s influence on CO2 levels, but as you pointed out, it is there. CO2 levels are much more complicated than the simplistic notion that fossil fuel use is the only, or even the primary explanation.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 29, 2010 at 2:59 am
David Middleton says:
April 28, 2010 at 2:35 pm
This AIRS image clearly shows Arctic CO2 in the 370′s, Antarctic CO2 in the 360′s and mid- to lower latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere to be in the 380′s.
The polar regions clearly have 10 to 20 ppmv lower CO2 concentrations than the mid- to low latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. This is one of the reasons that CO2 estimates from Antarctic ice cores are too low.
Yes, in summer time, but the opposite within the NH for winter times. Indeed there is a gradient between the NH and SH, as most of the human emissions are in the NH and the ITCZ slows down the interchange of air masses (including CO2) between the hemispheres. But over a year, the averages are less than 2 ppmv from each other within one hemisphere and less than 5 ppmv between near the North Pole (Barrow) and the South Pole:
Ferdinand, if you say there is a gradient, then you cannot say that it’s well mixed. I know that from my irish coffees 🙂
You can average, but statistics over an year (or anything) will not make that shifting gradient disappear in nature, just in the spreadsheet.
I can see it now:
“We’re killing the
polar bearsmicrobes!!!!!!”Josualdo says:
April 29, 2010 at 5:33 am
Ferdinand, if you say there is a gradient, then you cannot say that it’s well mixed. I know that from my irish coffees 🙂
You can average, but statistics over an year (or anything) will not make that shifting gradient disappear in nature, just in the spreadsheet.
Depends what borders you use in the definition of “well mixed”. One-year time frames are needed to eliminate the seasonal cycle (+/- 5 ppmv) and about one year is the lag of the SH. Thus, besides the influence of the seasons, the mixing of global CO2 is obtained within a year from about 1% difference (in absolute level) to zero, if there were no further emissions. It is because most of the emissions are in the NH that there is a gradient. Thus we may say that CO2 is well mixed within a year. Not within days or months or seasons. For the impact of CO2 on temperature, the variability within a year is of no importance, only the average CO2 increase over (many) years might be important (if at all).
BTW, let your Irish coffee stand for one day and it is well mixed too…
According to the US EPA,
• In 2000, energy-related emissions resulting from POTW operations – excluding organic sludge degradation – led to a global warming potential of 15.5 teragrams (Tg) CO2- equivalents (CO2-eq.), an acidification potential of 145 gigagrams (Gg) sulphur dioxide- equivalents (SO2-eq.), and eutrophication potential of 4 Gg phosphate equivalents (PO43- eq).
• CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) are mainly emitted during organic sludge degradation by anaerobic bacteria in the soil environment, wastewater treatment plant, and receiving water body.
• In 2006, an estimated 23.9 and 8.1 Tg CO2-eq. of CH4 and N2O, respectively, resulted from organic sludge degradation in wastewater treatment system, over 0.4% of total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
——
So, save the earth and don’t flush!! Your poop is ruining the climate!!
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
In addition, CO2 increase was reduced after the Pinatubo eruption in part from colder temperatures (-0.6 C), but also by increased photosynthesis: the aerosols redistributed sunlight in more diffuse ways, which enhanced sunrays impact on leaves which were more shaded from direct sunlight…
Incorrect assumption eg Duggen et al 2009
An anomalous oxygen pulse emanating from the Southern Hemisphere in the years following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption is consistent with an iron-fertilisation event with Pinatubo ash in the iron-limited Southern Ocean (Keeling et al., 1996; Watson, 1997; Sarmiento, 1993). It was proposed that the oxygen pulse was linked to an atmospheric CO2-drawdown in the same years, also argued to be causally related to an iron-fertilisation effect with ash from the Pinatubo eruption (Sarmiento, 1993; Watson, 1997). The causes for the post-Pinatubo CO2-drawdown, however, seem to be subject to ongoing discussion. It can be argued that the relative atmospheric CO2-reduction cannot be explained by an increase in net primary production (NPP) of the terrestrial biomass, as several studies show a decrease in terrestrial NPP of up to eight years after the eruption, possibly caused by a decrease in mean summer temperatures and a shortening of the growing season (Lucht et al., 2002; Nemani et al., 2003; Awaya et al., 2004; Krakauer and Randerson, 2003).
Lagmann et al 2010 summarize succintly
Interestingly, the direct deposition of volcanic ash from the Mt. Hudson eruption in Chile in 1991 into the iron-limited Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean (Scasso et al., 1994) was not even considered in explaining the observed CO2 drawdown of the 90ies.Another example is the eruption of Huaynaputina volcano in Peru in 1600 (de Silva and Zielinski, 1998). Volcanic ash settled into the tropical Pacific as well as the Southern Ocean, two large HNLC areas. The amount of tephra released by Huaynaputina in 1600 is 19.2 km3 minimum (de Silva and Zielinski, 1998), which is a factor of about 77 in comparison to Kasatochi, resulting in an amount of carbon consumed by phytoplankton of 9.2×1015 gC. The iron-fertilisation potential of this event could serve as an explanation for the atmospheric CO2 reduction by about 10 ppm which was measured in Antarctic ice cores after 1600 (Meure et al., 2006), but this mechanism has not been taken into account until now.
maksimovich says:
April 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Thanks for the interesting info! Hadn’t thought about the iron fertilization of the oceans… The assumption about increased NPP was from another source, but lost the reference. Seems to be wrong…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:16 am
Josualdo says:
April 29, 2010 at 5:33 am
Ferdinand, if you say there is a gradient, then you cannot say that it’s well mixed. I know that from my irish coffees 🙂
You can average, but statistics over an year (or anything) will not make that shifting gradient disappear in nature, just in the spreadsheet.
Depends what borders you use in the definition of “well mixed”.
Hmmm yes, let us define our terms…
[…] mixing of global CO2 is obtained within a year from about 1% difference (in absolute level) to zero, if there were no further emissions.
That’s decent. There that big “if” in there, though.
For the impact of CO2 on temperature, the variability within a year is of no importance, only the average CO2 increase over (many) years might be important (if at all).
I see. But what if the NH-SH gradient doesn’t go away? (Or am I missing someting?) I mean, it can stay for many years, I guess; be something like a fixed feature.
BTW, let your Irish coffee stand for one day and it is well mixed too…
Hogwash! Impossible! It never stands more than two minutes! 🙂
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 29, 2010 at 3:27 am
Ferdinand, thank you for being so helpful. I must forward a question, though, as it hasn’t left my mind since I read this:
While nature increases CO2 levels with higher temperatures, the increase is limited to 8 ppmv/C, even sustained over thousands of years.
Where does that value come from? This is very interesting, considering the geological record etc. I hope it’s not another model thing? That would be disappointing.
Josualdo says:
April 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm
I see. But what if the NH-SH gradient doesn’t go away? (Or am I missing someting?) I mean, it can stay for many years, I guess; be something like a fixed feature.
As human emissions are currently about 8 GtC/yr, or about 4 ppmv and 90% of the emissions are in the NH, this causes a near constant difference of near 4 ppmv between the NH and the SH. The difference was smaller in the past (50 years ago) than today and increases with the emission rate:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_2006.jpg
Thus if there were no emissions, the difference would be near zero within a year.
BTW, let your Irish coffee stand for one day and it is well mixed too…
Hogwash! Impossible! It never stands more than two minutes!
It is worse than I thought! Mixing already within 2 minutes… in your stomach.
The 8 ppmv/C comes from the Antarctic ice cores.
Of course, those ice cores yield an over all Pleistocene CO2 level that is 30 to 40 ppmv too low and fail to record the century-scale CO2 shifts of 60 or more ppmv that routinely occurred in response to prior episodes of global warming and cooling during the Holocene.
Josualdo says:
April 29, 2010 at 1:43 pm
While nature increases CO2 levels with higher temperatures, the increase is limited to 8 ppmv/C, even sustained over thousands of years.
Where does that value come from? This is very interesting, considering the geological record etc. I hope it’s not another model thing? That would be disappointing.
This is based on the Vostok ice core (420,000 years) and recently confirmed by the Dome C core (800,000 years). The ratio between CO2 levels in the ice core and temperature (proxies: dD and d18O) is remarkably linear:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
Where zero temperature is current average temperature. Most of the deviations from the trend line is at the transitions, caused by the lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes: some 800 years for deglaciations and several thousands of years for the onset of glaciations.
The inland high altitude ice cores more or less reflect the average temperature of the SH oceans over a wide area in dD and d18O isotopic shifts. There are some differences in timing with the NH, but similar reconstructions (Greenland ice core for the last 120,000 years) show similar (ocean) temperature shifts. Unfortunately the Greenland ice core can’t be used for CO2 measurements, as there is a lot of contamination (including CO2 production) by (Icelandic) volcanic dust in the ice layers.
The 8 ppmv/C ratio is quite constant over the past near million years, with the current position of continents and mountain ranges, but may be quite different in other geological times. The ratio includes long term changes in (deep) ocean flows, ice caps, forest area,…
The short term CO2/temperature ratio is about 4 ppmv/C around the trend, based on the reaction of CO2 increase rate on cooling (1992 Pinatubo) and warming (1998 El Niño).
What the study says is that there will be an initial ‘burp’ of CO2 from the soil critters when the temperature rises followed by a longer period of reduced emissions.
The AGW models are based on the assumption that the ‘burp’ continues, probably because no one had done long term studies before. If so, then it is not their fault as long as they are willing to correct the models for the new data. It also demonstrates the critical need for input to the models from outside the field of climatology.
Unfortunately, the study appears to be limited to soils from only one area, and will need to be replicated in multiple countries and biomes before it can be considered confirmed. So, more research is necessary, but it would be quicker and possibly cheaper to fund multiple small studies using a common process than to have only one study team perform them all. This would also block the principle scientist from withholding his data from the public until he has exhausted the potential to produce of papers and studies and substitute a rush to publish.
**************
Smokey says:
April 29, 2010 at 5:24 am
Beck had a chart showing that CO2 peaks during various moon phases, but I can no longer find it. A lot of folks would be skeptical of the moon’s influence on CO2 levels, but as you pointed out, it is there. CO2 levels are much more complicated than the simplistic notion that fossil fuel use is the only, or even the primary explanation.
*******************
See figure 22 for the moon phases chart:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf
Does anyone remember this article by Freeman Dyson from “Edge” three years ago? (Part 2 Climate and Land Management)
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
The CAGW people in their fretful little blogs were falling all over themselves trying to make out that Dyson was getting too old to be talking about important things like global warming and climate change.
erm ….. exactly how many soil temperature monitoring stations are there in the world ? [enter the vanishing small number here ____] are they any more accurate and report for periods similar to surface weather stations [no]
has ANYONE actually shown that there is ANY measurable net global//widespread increase in soil temperatures coupled with the supposed questionable .5 degree C lower atmospheric temp anomaly. [no]
Has anyone accurately measured CO2 cycling over any kind of range of soil systems in the field [no]
Are current numbers about CO2 cycling in soil eco-systems any better than Wild-Ass-Guesses [no]
from what I recall, ground temperatures are incredibly resistant to quick change and act more like climate and less like weather.
[b]So, in conclusion, we have hypothetical modeling “data” reported that possibly might could possibly be accurate within several orders of magnitude concerning a likely non-existent issue/problem/hypothesis from systems we do not understand and have never accurately measured. [/b]
What exactly could go wrong with this picture ???
rofl
Jim says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:58 pm
**************
Smokey says:
April 29, 2010 at 5:24 am
Beck had a chart showing that CO2 peaks during various moon phases, but I can no longer find it. A lot of folks would be skeptical of the moon’s influence on CO2 levels, but as you pointed out, it is there. CO2 levels are much more complicated than the simplistic notion that fossil fuel use is the only, or even the primary explanation.
*******************
See figure 22 for the moon phases chart:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf
Even with far more accurate modern measurements, there is some correlation of CO2/temperature with sun/moon positions. But these are more on decadal scale, not monthly scale. See page 70 and following pages in the autobiography of C.D. Keeling:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf
Most of the historical data collected by Beck are in fact worthless for historical background levels, as these were taken over land near huge sources. As we see e.g. huge diurnal changes in the two main series (Giessen and Poona) which are at the base of the 1942 “peak” (which doesn’t exist in any other CO2 measurement/proxy), this points to nearby vegetation and other sources and the data can’t be used for global estimates. The modern data from Giessen e.g. confirm huge diurnal variations of over 300 ppmv (in summer), where the historical measurements have an additional positive bias due to the 3 samples per day of which 2 were taken at the largest changes in CO2 level. See further my comment on Beck’s data:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
@ur momisugly David Middleton says: April 29, 2010 at 2:30 pm
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen says: April 29, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Vostok ice cores: Thank you both. I think I’ll be at the library for a while.
****************
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 30, 2010 at 1:10 am
************
In general your conclusions about Beck’s measurements make sense.
Didn’t anyone bother to think that maybe the carboniferous was an “existence proof” that carbon is sequestered in the earth during warm periods?
Sheesh. We’ve got megatons of carbon all over the planet from a high CO2 hot period causing massive sequestration in the ground. You’d think they would have noticed that the bugs didn’t go nuts and eat it all “spewing” it as CO2…
When did science get taken over by highly educated idiots making “perfect error”?
(In Karate class, we were always admonished not to practice “perfect error” but to make sure you were doing something correctly and THEN practice for more speed and natural flow. I think “climate scientists” need to spend some time in the dojo learning that accuracy comes first, then the rest… so you don’t end up with “perfect error”.)
I brought together the research on the moon phase and CO2 levels at http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/004166.html
I was sceptical when Ernst-Georg Beck first said that “CO2 amount in air varies monthly with lunar phases – Higher CO2 levels occur at full moons”.
But the Earth is slightly closer to the Sun at Full Moon than at New Moon, and will therefore receive slightly more solar radiation during daylight hours, increasing maximum temperatures and thus DTR as a whole. …”a statistically significantly higher DTR occurs near the full moon (~10.23°C) while a lower DTR occurs near the new moon (~10.13°C)…”
And of course CO2 solubility is temperature dependent and so the atmospheric amount will be altered, by a tiny amount but it isn’t a lunatic idea.
(I note that I quoted in my post http://web.archive.org/web/20010418041708/http://www.nature.com/nsu/990624/990624-9.html which also says “The message should be clear: all possible sources of variation should be investigated before blaming human activity alone for observed changes in climatic parameters.”)
In addition to reading up on ice cores, be sure to check out some of these papers…
Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973.
Berner et al., 2001. GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME. American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204.
Kouwenberg et al., 2004. APPLICATION OF CONIFER NEEDLES IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HOLOCENE CO2 LEVELS. PhD Thesis. Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, University of Utrecht.
Esper et al., 2005. Climate: past ranges and future changes. Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 2164–2166.
Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.
Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus (2005), 57B, 351–355.
Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.
Jessen et al., 2005. Abrupt climatic changes and an unstable transition into a late Holocene Thermal Decline: a multiproxy lacustrine record from southern Sweden. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 20(4) 349–362 (2005).
Beck, 2007. 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT. VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007.
David Middleton says:
April 30, 2010 at 7:27 am
In addition to reading up on ice cores, be sure to check out some of these papers…
Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973.
While the stomata data are quite interesting and show a much better resolution, one need to be cautious about the results. These have the same problem as many historical data by chemical methods: measured over land near huge CO2 sources. Stomata data is a proxy which is influenced by average CO2 levels in the previous year (personal communication with Van Hoof). But as these levels are, by definition, over land, there may be a huge (positive) bias, noteworthy from the same soil bacteria this discussion started with. Thus higher or colder temperatures at a certain period back in time may have far more local effect than at places far away from huge sources.
Stomata data in recent periods are calibrated against ice cores, but the problem is that we don’t know the general changes in local/regional CO2 levels due to landscape changes (and prevailing wind direction changes!). The South Netherlands oak stomata of 800 years ago may have seen a quite different landscape (and CO2 level…) from marshes to forests to agriculture in the main wind direction…
Thus for the moment it is prudent to take the stomata data as a rough estimate of historical CO2 levels (as good as many of the chemical measurements), with a better resolution than ice cores, but with less accuracy, larger variability and more local/regional bias, which may have changed over history.
The Englishman says:
April 30, 2010 at 7:04 am
But the Earth is slightly closer to the Sun at Full Moon than at New Moon, and will therefore receive slightly more solar radiation during daylight hours, increasing maximum temperatures and thus DTR as a whole. …”a statistically significantly higher DTR occurs near the full moon (~10.23°C) while a lower DTR occurs near the new moon (~10.13°C)…”
That means that at the current short term ratio between temperature and CO2 levels, we should see an amplitude of about 0.4 ppmv CO2 around the trend. Mauna Loa is accurate to 0.1 ppmv, thud the 0.4 ppmv cyclr should be visible, if one substracts the seasonal cycle and the trend from the data.