University of Helsinki via Eurekalert
Unaccounted feedbacks from climate-induced ecosystem changes may increase future climate warming
The terrestrial biosphere regulates atmospheric composition, and hence climate. Projections of future climate changes already account for “carbon-climate feedbacks”, which means that more CO2 is released from soils in a warming climate than is taken up by plants due to photosynthesis. Climate changes will also lead to increases in the emission of CO2 and methane from wetlands, nitrous oxides from soils, volatile organic compounds from forests, and trace gases and soot from fires. All these emissions affect atmospheric chemistry, including the amount of ozone in the lower atmosphere, where it acts as a powerful greenhouse gas as well as a pollutant toxic to people and plants.
Although our understanding of other feedbacks associated with climate-induced ecosystem changes is improving, the impact of these changes is not yet accounted for in climate-change modelling. An international consortium of scientists, led by Almut Arneth from Lund University, has estimated the importance of these unaccounted “biogeochemical feedbacks” in an article that appears as Advance Online Publication on Nature Geoscience‘s website on 25 July at 1800 London time. They estimate a total additional radiative forcing by the end of the 21st century that is large enough to offset a significant proportion of the cooling due to carbon uptake by the biosphere as a result of fertilization of plant growth.
There are large uncertainties associated in these feedbacks, especially in how changes in one biogeochemical cycle will affect the other cycles, for example how changes in nitrogen cycling will affect carbon uptake. Nevertheless, as the authors point out, palaeo-environmental records show that ecosystems and trace gas emissions have responded to past climate change within decades. Contemporary observations also show that ecosystem processes respond rapidly to changes in climate and the atmospheric environment.
Thus, in addition to the carbon cycle-climate interactions that have been a major focus of modelling work in recent years, other biogeochemistry feedbacks could be at least equally important for future climate change. The authors of the Nature Geoscience article argue that it is important to include these feedbacks in the next generation of Earth system models.
This work was promoted by iLEAPS (Integrated Land Ecosystem and Atmospheric Processes), a core project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, and developed through workshops supported by the Finnish Cultural Programme.
================================
Journal Reference: (note the actual paper was not provided with this press release)
A. Arneth, S. P. Harrison, S. Zaehle, K. Tsigaridis, S. Menon, P. J. Bartlein, J. Feichter, A. Korhola, M. Kulmala, D. O’Donnell, G. Schurgers, S. Sorvari & T. Vesala. Terrestrial biogeochemical feedbacks in the climate system. Nature Geoscience, July 25, 2010 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo905
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Curiousgeorge says:
July 26, 2010 at 10:33 am
Oh, my god! it’s worse than we thought! The world is running out of URL by 2012! What about all those poor 3rd world people who will have to do without URL! Somebody do something, quick!
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/26/world-run-internet-addresses-year-experts-predict/?test=latestnews
———-Reply.
Just make URLs case sensitive–problem solved.
Pamela Gray says:
July 26, 2010 at 10:59 am
Pamela, you should have put your admonition not to laugh at the start of your post. At the end, it was too late.
allow me to translate:
“models based on co2 with current feedbacks (adjustable parameters) are not scary enough and too obviously flawed. here are some new and more obscure feedbacks (fudge factors) with which you may continue to generate more scary and less refutable grant generating predictions.”
jmrSudbury says:
July 26, 2010 at 8:03 am
“Nevertheless, as the authors point out, palaeo-environmental records show that ecosystems and trace gas emissions have responded to past climate change within decades. ”
CO2 levels have been increasing since the industrial revolution. Their levels have skyrocketed since the 1940s. It has been at least 6 decades already. Is that not enough to see how the ecosystem responds to trace gas emissions?
John M Reynolds
_____________
Have you not seen this graph?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45146000/gif/_45146192_ice_extent_466.gif
It could very well be “unaccounted for feedbacks” that have driven the Arctic sea ice extent summer minimum to well below even the lowest GCM predicted. Polar amplification and a more regular Arctic Dipole anomaly could be just two such feedbacks. It seems unreasonable to expect to increase CO2 40% virutally instantly (from a geological perspective) and not get some “unaccounted for feedbacks.”
Mikael Pihlström says:
July 26, 2010 at 11:17 am
“[…]Point suggested: you get in there; do the concrete scientific work; it is
good for you, for science and society, and you still have the freedom to
be sceptic if there is cause for it. Chances are you will be better informed
scientifically and less ideology driven.[…]”
This study is good for society how? I am ideology-driven because i criticize a ridiculous committee-driven study behind a paywall from which i only know that i paid for it yet i don’t get to see the results without paying again, and which tells me that we’re uncertain about the future but there’s probably a positive forcing of a frightening 1.5 W/m^2 to be expected from whatever they modeled?
You see, there’s only so much parasitic activity one can pay for.
Isn’t this unaccounted feedback hypothesis like vaporware?
In vaporware, the hardware is released before there is enough software written. Nice computer, just don’t expect to do anything useful with it. The assumption is that the software vendors will write the programs.
They Warming Modelers are writing the prediction before knowing what goes into the missing portions of the equations.
The assumption is that the climate will continue to do what it has been doing ad infinitum, and the missing pieces won’t matter.
RockyRoad says:
July 26, 2010 at 11:20 am
You missed my little joke. Peak URL – – Peak Oil. Get it?
R. Gates says:
July 26, 2010 at 11:28 am
Still on your favorite subject. See the danish site DMI.
Mean temp in the artic dropped to freezing some days ago and has stayed there.
DirkH says:
July 26, 2010 at 11:30 am
This study is good for society how? I am ideology-driven because i criticize a ridiculous committee-driven study behind a paywall from which i only know that i paid for it yet i don’t get to see the results without paying again, and which tells me that we’re uncertain about the future but there’s probably a positive forcing of a frightening 1.5 W/m^2 to be expected from whatever they modeled?
You see, there’s only so much parasitic activity one can pay for.
______
The whole sceptic movement from Reagan’s time onwards is ideologically
motivated. The tax aspect is taken in every second post on this site.
Please, let’s not play games here, we are adults or no?
The pay-walls are a nuisance. But, I guess journals have to get revenue,
even Energy&Environment has one.
Good for society = incremental growth of evidence leading to effective
climate policy.
“The authors of the Nature Geoscience article argue that it is important to include these feedbacks in the next generation of Earth system models.”
These alleged and imagined and unknown “feedbacks” sound like the pseudo-science of the Drake Equation, aka the Flake Equation, with it’s many parameters each of which can take on a very small number to an immense number rendering the entire exercise null and void as hard science.
There is way too much conjecture and soothsaying in climate science, it’s about time that climate scientists focused on hard observed facts without modifying or fabricating the data.
One positive feedback not mentioned is that warming weather makes the grass grow taller so the giraffes don’t need to bend down so far to feast on it. Eating more grass makes them more flatulent, so more methane is emitted. On the other hand (er, neck?) the tree-leaves those giraffes would normally eat are spared, so the trees grow bigger and taller, consume more CO2, thereby creating a sort of negative feedback. Ummm .. now where was I?
What puzzles me is the presence of Atte Korhola in the list of authors. Climate Audit quotes him:
The amplifier diagram shown, which apparently is intended to ape an EE’s circuit diagram, neglects the most important feature: it leaves out the inverting input. That is, from all evidence, the net climate feedback should subtract from the initial forcing, reducing the output amplitude.
In fact, however, it’s not obvious that this analogy is useful at all. An amplifier with any gain greater than 1 wired as shown will immediately oscillate uncontrollably with any input whatever.
What was the journal’s excuse for publishing this, again?
Craig Goodrich says:
July 26, 2010 at 12:23 pm
The EE circuit diagram is not from the journal or article.
Mikael Pihlström says:
July 26, 2010 at 11:48 am
“[…]The whole sceptic movement from Reagan’s time onwards is ideologically
motivated. […]”
Striking logic, Mikael. I don’t belong to a movement; and i’m German, i’m not involved in American politics at all. I leave you alone now.
The terrestrial biosphere regulates atmospheric composition, and hence climate?
How myopic!
It is plantetary mechanics which dictates the Sun’s activity which throttles our magnetosphere, thus varying cosmic ray penetration, cloud formation, and the global cooling that trumps global warming.
And what about heat from magma tide friction, heat from radiological decay, and core heat transfer. Doesn’t that figure into the surface radiation budget? Meanwhile, CO2, instead of just coming along for the ride, is elevated to driver status, and water vapor, the supreme ruler of the greenhouse gas kingdom, is ignored. Give me a break!
I think this is a set up for this:
http://www.canada.com/body+value+planet+show+cost+damage/3290200/story.html
The world relies on a range of services nature provides — water filtration by forests, pollination by bees and a supply of wild plant genes for new food crops or medicines.
If nature charged for these, how much would it cost?
Most such values are excluded from measures of national economies and from prices and markets which would force businesses and governments to recognize them, and the result has been a bias towards development over conservation.
“Striking logic, Mikael. I don’t belong to a movement; and i’m German, i’m not involved in American politics at all. I leave you alone now.”
Mikael will now accuse you of taking money from the oil industry, Dirk. Because no amount of evidence will convince a true believer who refuses to see the fraud and data manipulation of the climate change/global warming cabal, and not to mention the abuse of the scientific and peer-review processes. These people have set back science 100 years, yet they have the cheek to accuse someone of idealogical motivations. My God, my irony meter blew out the top!
Back in the good old days of dino-topia not just the ganja farmers were happy, but everything grow larger and bigger animal and plants alike, and this has been proven time and again had to do with co2 and lots of nutrients like nitrogen, just ask any racer, lol.
It seem to stand to reason that the more co2 we get, the bigger and larger everything gets, as a natural balance factor…. zomg! The americans? O_o
Put simply they are saying
We don’t know what we don’t know.
You don’t suppose…nah…couldn’t happen. IPCC scientists have more integrity than that. I was just supposing a “what if”.
What if, after the last report had so many convoluted references than ended up starting in some ideological PETA-ish website, that these IPCC scientists have already figured out what they want to say in the next report so are flooding the journal and magazine river systems with research and articles that will say what they want to say?
Nah. Nobody does such bad form research. The null hypothesis style of research is still King, right?
Right???
Beuller?
Beuller??
Ferris Beuller???
I made an even simpler diagram.
More heat => more evaporation => more clouds => more reflected sunlight => less heat => less evaporation => less clouds => more absorbed sunlight => more heat.
Repeat as necessary.
Marc Morano
Climate Depot
July 26, 2010
Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.
In a hard-hitting and exclusive new exclusive video just released by Climate Depot, Dr. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/left-wing-env-scientist-bails-out-of-global-warming-movement-declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenon-strictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-world-middleclass.html
When I taught Senior High School chemistry, we taught ’em Le Chatelier’s principle – Which applies to all physical and chemical processes (including biogeochemical processes)
(And some economists think it applies to taxation & human behavior too! – people do the opposite of what you want them to! lol)
The principle os:
Whenever an equilibrium is disturbed, then processes tend in the opposite direction to minimise the change.
In other words, negative feed backs are fundamental to any form of chemistry. There are NO positive feedback’s in chemical processes.
What do they teach children today?
If the Warmists continue to churn out perpetual motion machine after perpetual motion machine, maybe some day they will become self-critical and realize that they are a perpetual motion machine or, better, maybe they will realize that there must be a God who has protected them from being eaten alive by one of these pertual motion machines, especially the one that they are.