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.”
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/CO2%20Moon%20Phase.jpg shows exactly that, Mauna Loa and the lunar cycle of CO2 concentration – it is only a small sample. I haven’t found the data to do a longer analysis
The Englishman says:
April 30, 2010 at 12:17 pm
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/CO2%20Moon%20Phase.jpg shows exactly that, Mauna Loa and the lunar cycle of CO2 concentration – it is only a small sample. I haven’t found the data to do a longer analysis
Cleaned (without local/regional outliers) daily averages 1974-2008 can be found at:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/mlo/
Filename: mlo_01C0_day.co2
The file includes average, stdv of the average and number of retained hourly averages included in the daily average. What lacks is the expected seasonal cycle influence for daily averages, only a seasonally corrected trend for monthly averages is availbale at:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
I overlooked the left side graph of Mauna Loa, as the right side from historical data is normally too inaccurate (most methods were +/- 3% or +/- 10 ppmv) to detect changes in the order of a few tenths of a ppmv.
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
Isn’t it the opposite? At Full Moon the sun and moon are at opposite sides of the earth, I should expect a shorter distance to the sun at New Moon…
Ferdinand,
It might also be prudent to use the various CO2 tools according to their respective bandwidths when reconstructing the pre-MLO CO2 “signal.”
GeoCarb, though model-derived, does a decent job of reconstructing the very low frequency component of the signal. Wavelength: Millions to 10’s of millions of years.
Ice cores do a decent job of reconstructing the mid-range frequencies. Wavelength: Thousands to 10’s of thousands of years in most cases. The shallow section of Law Dome and sections of other cores with anomalously short firn densification times can have better resolution (century to even decadal).
Plant stomata do a decent job of reconstructing the high frequency component. Wavelength: Annual in some cases; but normally decadal to century scale.
The modern instrumental record theoretically would contain the full frequency spectrum. However, its short record length restricts the amount of low frequency data that has been recorded and the fact that the data are so heavily smoothed removes much of the high frequency data. It’s like a very good reflection seismic line that has been hammered with coherency filters.
If you assemble a CO2 signal using all of the tools in a manner that preserves true amplitude and frequency, you get a CO2 profile that makes the modern day look a lot less anomalous than just tacking MLO on to the end of Law Dome… CO2 800AD to Present.
This is the same basic principle that explains why temperature reconstructions like Moberg (2005) and Esper (2003) make the modern warming appear a lot less anomalous than the “Hockey Sticks”… Moberg, Esper, Mann and Alley.
David Middleton says:
May 1, 2010 at 4:07 am
If you assemble a CO2 signal using all of the tools in a manner that preserves true amplitude and frequency, you get a CO2 profile that makes the modern day look a lot less anomalous than just tacking MLO on to the end of Law Dome… CO2 800AD to Present.
David, I agree with the temperature profiles. Moberg seems far more realistic than Mann, probably because in his reconstruction tree rings have a minor impact.
But I disagree with your CO2 profile: the stomata show the true amplitude and frequency of CO2 at the regional level where the stomata were sampled (+/- 10 ppmv) which give a rough indication of global levels, but not more than that (comparable to tree rings as temperature indicators…).
Law Dome (DSS core) over the past 1,000 years has a resolution of 21 years (8 years over the past 150 years for the other two Law Dome ice cores and 20 years overlap with the South Pole measurements), by far sufficient to see any one-year peak of 30 ppmv or any 20 years long sustained in/decrease of 3 ppmv (the accuracy is +/- 1.3 ppmv, 1 sigma). The latter is visible as a 6 ppmv sink of CO2 in the LIA, for an about 0.8 K temperature drop (if we take Moberg’s reconstruction as base). That is comparable to the 8 ppmv/K CO2 variations over the glacials-interglacials.
Thus I think that the CO2 hockeystick is a real one…
@ur momisugly Ferdinand…
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
But, it’s always a pleasure discussing it with you.
Dave
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: May 1, 2010 at 2:30 am
At Full Moon the sun and moon are at opposite sides of the earth, I should expect a shorter distance to the sun at New Moon…
No it is nearer at Full moon:
The earth and moon are a spinning system which has a centre of rotation within the earth but not at the centre of the earth.
Simple experiment.
Find a small child, or similar substitute and a lamp post.
Spin with the child in your arms in the light of the lamp.
You will lean backwards from the child as you rotate; as the light of the lamp fully lights up the screaming brat’s face you will be leaning back towards the light. As you continue to rotate to the new moon position, so the light is behind the child, you will be further away from the lamp post.
The Englishman says:
May 2, 2010 at 6:56 am
No it is nearer at Full moon:
The earth and moon are a spinning system which has a centre of rotation within the earth but not at the centre of the earth.
Nice explanation, thanks a lot!