Got a warming wound? Rub a salt marsh in it.

From the University of Virginia, comes yet another incomplete press release that doesn’t give the name of the paper or the DOI:

Marsh Bride Brook and Coastal Salt Marsh, East...
Marsh Bride Brook and Coastal Salt Marsh, East Lyme Conn. July 2003; 1204 pixels X 521 pixels. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Salt marsh carbon may play role in slowing climate warming, study shows

A warming climate and rising seas will enable salt marshes to more rapidly capture and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, possibly playing a role in slowing the rate of climate change, according to a new study led by a University of Virginia environmental scientist and published in the Sept. 27 issue of the journal Nature.

Carbon dioxide is the predominant so-called “greenhouse gas” that acts as sort of an atmospheric blanket, trapping the Earth’s heat. Over time, an abundance of carbon dioxide can change the global climate, according to generally accepted scientific theory. A warmer climate melts polar ice, causing sea levels to rise.

A large portion of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is produced by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels to energize a rapidly growing world human population.

“We predict that marshes will absorb some of that carbon dioxide, and if other coastal ecosystems – such as seagrasses and mangroves – respond similarly, there might be a little less warming,” said the study’s lead author, Matt Kirwan, a research assistant professor of environmental sciences in the College of Arts & Sciences.

Salt marshes, made up primarily of grasses, are important coastal ecosystems, helping to protect shorelines from storms and providing habitat for a diverse range of wildlife, from birds to mammals, shell- and fin-fishes and mollusks. They also build up coastal elevations by trapping sediment during floods, and produce new soil from roots and decaying organic matter.

“One of the cool things about salt marshes is that they are perhaps the best example of an ecosystem that actually depends on carbon accumulation to survive climate change: The accumulation of roots in the soil builds their elevation, keeping the plants above the water,” Kirwan said.

Salt marshes store enormous quantities of carbon, essential to plant productivity, by, in essence, breathing in the atmospheric carbon and then using it to grow, flourish and increase the height of the soil. Even as the grasses die, the carbon remains trapped in the sediment. The researchers’ model predicts that under faster sea-level rise rates, salt marshes could bury up to four times as much carbon as they do now.

“Our work indicates that the value of these ecosystems in capturing atmospheric carbon might become much more important in the future, as the climate warms,” Kirwan said.

But the study also shows that marshes can survive only moderate rates of sea level rise. If seas rise too quickly, the marshes could not increase their elevations at a rate rapid enough to stay above the rising water. And if marshes were to be overcome by fast-rising seas, they no longer could provide the carbon storage capacity that otherwise would help slow climate warming and the resulting rising water.

“At fast levels of sea level rise, no realistic amount of carbon accumulation will help them survive,” Kirwan noted.

Kirwan and his co-author, Simon Mudd, a geosciences researcher at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, used computer models to predict salt marsh growth rates under different climate change and sea-level scenarios.

###

The United States Geological Survey’s Global Change Research Program supported the research.

Contact: Fariss Samarrai  fls4f@virginia.edu (and tell him to make complete press releases please)

===============================================================

After some searching, I found the paper and the abstract:

Response of salt-marsh carbon accumulation to climate change

Matthew L. Kirwan & Simon M. Mudd

Nature 489, 550–553 (27 September 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11440

About half of annual marine carbon burial takes place in shallow water ecosystems where geomorphic and ecological stability is driven by interactions between the flow of water, vegetation growth and sediment transport1. Although the sensitivity of terrestrial and deep marine carbon pools to climate change has been studied for decades, there is little understanding of how coastal carbon accumulation rates will change and potentially feed back on climate2, 3. Here we develop a numerical model of salt marsh evolution, informed by recent measurements of productivity and decomposition, and demonstrate that competition between mineral sediment deposition and organic-matter accumulation determines the net impact of climate change on carbon accumulation in intertidal wetlands. We find that the direct impact of warming on soil carbon accumulation rates is more subtle than the impact of warming-driven sea level rise, although the impact of warming increases with increasing rates of sea level rise. Our simulations suggest that the net impact of climate change will be to increase carbon burial rates in the first half of the twenty-first century, but that carbon–climate feedbacks are likely to diminish over time.

 

 

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
112 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TomO
September 26, 2012 4:49 pm

All these sea level rises…. and that would be where exactly ?
As somebody professionally tasked with measuring sea levels – I find the rising sea levels meme trotted out by paid for alarmists exasperating in the extreme. The global rising sea level has as many facets as the global surface temperature – and I think most here are aware of the liberties some folk take with that….
Salt marshes are very trendy ecosystems in eco-land and are attracting shed loads of money and it would seem clouds of a new type of blood sucking midge. In the UK – eco cash is being lobbied hard for – one can hardly blame farmers if they make more money from subsidy farming of taxpayers.
Get a load of the fake charities and assorted midges hanging around this project

September 26, 2012 5:02 pm

Not news, but propaganda.

Barbee
September 26, 2012 5:07 pm

Future Headline:
Global Warming causes Global Cooling

TImothy Sorenson
September 26, 2012 5:08 pm

There is a good side to this. Remember the long list of possible factors affecting ‘climate change’? Well this one was not on that list nor is it in the models. So this is climate science admitting we missed a carbon sink that could affect our models, but it won’t affect our future prediction of CAGW.

AndyG55
September 26, 2012 5:38 pm

E.M.Smith.
If you study predator/prey or other food source type data you will see that is is how things work.
It also points to the so-called stable value for CO2 of around 250 -280ppm is actually the BARE SUBSISTENCE level for the balance between plant life and CO2.
At around this value most plants have their stomata packed in about as tight as they can, and are higly inefficient in their use of water, because so much of it transpires through the packed stomata.
PLANTS NEED MORE CO2. STOP STARVING THE PLANTS !!!
toward 600+ ppm 🙂 !!!

Dave Dodd
September 26, 2012 5:49 pm

Mike Roddy says:
September 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I hope you are NOT related to Dave Roddy with whom I worked at USGS when they were still part of this planetary system! Dave Roddy was a scientist, pilot and personal friend, who departed this earth much too soon. He studied REAL threats to planet Earth i.e. meteor strikes, etc. (think Meteor Crater, near Flagstaff, AZ) He also knew cAGW was hogwash as did the other scientists who were employed at that time. I’m ashamed of where USGS now finds itself!!

September 26, 2012 5:55 pm

I’m surprised that the paper’s authors didn’t take immediate exception to the several, incorrect assertions made in the press release – http://tinyurl.com/d3adzcx (link to UV press release). I believe both skeptic and alarmist agree on the following (which have already been pointed out by a number of commentators):
1. Water vapor and not carbon dioxide is the (only) predominant greenhouse gas;
2. Carbon dioxide does not trap heat but it does absorb and re-radiant a portion of the earth’s thermal energy; and
3. 5-9% of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions (as emitted annually by humanity) does not represent a large portion of all atmospheric carbon but rather reflect a minority interest.
While other assertions may be true (or not) depending upon how they are nuanced (e.g., what is an “enormous” quantity of carbon, a warmer “climate” melts polar caps and rises sea levels, and what is the global climate other than Gaia), the prominent stumble vis-a-vis the press release invariably diminishes the paper – at least with those who adhere to the scientific method and its results reporting process.
Although the paper is behind the Nature paywall, I trust Kinwan and Mudd note Connor et al. (2001) in their references, who (more or less) concluded the same with regard to the carbon capture potential of salt marshes (more than 10 years ago) – http://tinyurl.com/boxhcmf (link to Global Biogeochemcial Cycles paper).

September 26, 2012 6:05 pm

“Salt marsh carbon may play role in slowing climate warming, study shows”
Anybody knows how much of the Earth’s surface are salt marshes?
This is like painting roofs white in order to cool down the Earth’s temperature.
When are these never-ending claims of silly assumptions going to stop?

old engineer
September 26, 2012 6:05 pm

“Carbon dioxide is the predominant so-called ‘greenhouse gas’…..” Even leaving out water vapor, is it?.
The last time there was discussion here at WUWT about whether to use scenario A or B from Hansen’s 1988 paper (back in May, I believe) I decided to start a detailed look at the scenarios. The first thing I looked at was CO2. I made up a spread sheet to calculate the year by year CO2 for each of the scenarios.
For 2011, the CO2 ambient concentration for scenario A was 393.7 ppm and for scenario B the concentration was 391 ppm. The greenhouse gas concentration differences for the two scenarios were in the other gases he used. So if CO2 is the predominate greenhouse gas, and Hansen’ scenario A and B have essentially the same CO2 concentration in 2011, how come there is a 25% difference in the A and B temperature anomalies for 2011 (1.0 to 1.25 deg. C)?. Then consider the fact 394 ppm is close to the actual ambient level in 2011, and the actual temperature anomaly is about 0.4 deg. C
Well, I suppose you could define “predominant” to mean: causes greater than 51 percent of the temperature anomaly increase in the models.

Katherine
September 26, 2012 6:16 pm

Carbon dioxide is the predominant so-called “greenhouse gas” that acts as sort of an atmospheric blanket, trapping the Earth’s heat.
No, it’s not. Water vapor is the predominant “greenhouse gas.” The effect of carbon dioxide needs amplification by water vapor to cause any catastrophic result.
A large portion of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is produced by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels to energize a rapidly growing world human population.
Since when did less than 3% become a “large portion”?
Kirwan and his co-author, Simon Mudd, a geosciences researcher at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, used computer models to predict salt marsh growth rates under different climate change and sea-level scenarios.
It’s models all the way down.

AnonyMoose
September 26, 2012 6:27 pm

How about we start giving such press releases what they deserve?
If they don’t name the paper, ignore it. We can’t be certain that any papers which we find are the ones being described in the press release. So just show the press release and laugh at its lack of release.

Manfred
September 26, 2012 6:46 pm

It’s hard to credit this stuff to thinking adults, yet it is the domain of Science Academies, Governments, Greenies, Warmists et al and, if one is to believe it, the populus as a whole and all scientists but the silliest fringe of the mentally compromised, or so we are told.
Never has it been more true that: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane”
Marcus Aurelius

janama
September 26, 2012 6:56 pm

The journal Nature’s editor should hang his/her head in shame!!

September 26, 2012 7:09 pm

Um,,,,,, let me ask a simple question. What is the actual global warming temperature differential that we talk about?
Okay, in simpler terms, would it not be appropriate to have a global warming thermometer calculator thingy? Like the debt clock thing……
Is the global warming you’re actually talking about actually 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 160 years?
If not, what is it?
What is the actual number for global warming that we all reference and everyone talks about ?
It is a bit perplexing, no?

eyesonu
September 26, 2012 7:19 pm

E.M.Smith says:
September 26, 2012 at 4:48 pm
===================
I followed the links you post in your above comment. Excellent way to put CO2 in perspective.
I hope that this can be vetted and placed as a leading post on WUWT for much greater exposure. Your description is worth more than a thousand words.

September 26, 2012 7:34 pm

John West says:
September 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm
As soon as I see “heat trapping” I know they’re clueless. You can’t trap heat. Energy that isn’t being transferred isn’t heat. Zero credibility.
======================================================================
“Heat trapping” is the PETA-approved replacement for “snipe hunting”.

accordionsrule
September 26, 2012 7:37 pm

“We find that the direct impact of warming on soil carbon accumulation rates is more subtle than the impact of warming-driven sea level rise, although the impact of warming increases with increasing rates of sea level rise.”
I think I get it. Higher sea builds up the marsh, but too high sea drowns the plants.
Saltwater marshes may store enormous amounts of carbon, but they also emit enormous amounts of methane, so what’s the point.

September 26, 2012 7:37 pm

“One of the cool things about salt marshes is that they are perhaps the best example of an ecosystem that actually depends on carbon accumulation to survive climate change: The accumulation of roots in the soil builds their elevation, keeping the plants above the water,” Kirwan said.
==========================================================================
Is that better?

September 26, 2012 7:59 pm

“…A warmer climate melts polar ice, causing sea levels to rise…”
So, it stands to reason that if the warmer climate has given us the greatest melt of Arctic Sea Ice since the start of the satellite observations, we should also be seeing the greatest amount of sea level rise in the same time period.

September 26, 2012 8:29 pm

”Salt marsh carbon may play role in slowing climate warming, study shows”
NO, study doesn’t show, it’s a creation of a ”BACKDOOR EXIT” – for spending trillion bucks for preventing the non-existent global warming; sold to the Urban Sheep as ”climate change” to get themselves out of trouble.
Marshes, sunspots, galactic dust, ozone, the sea, the polar ice; just not to admit that ”it was a gigantic / expensive lie, and nothing more. Fake Skeptics are faithfully assisting the Warmist – to cover-up the Warmist shame, for lying = The so called ”Skeptics” reduced themselves into a Warmist’s ”Fig leafs” welcome to the circus…

E.M.Smith
Editor
September 26, 2012 8:47 pm

:
Thanks! Anthony has ‘carte blanche’ to use anything I post that he finds useful.
The strange thing is that I did those calculations at least a dozen times. Still, when I look at the one tile with the corn stalk standing on it, leaning against the large tree trunk behind it, I think “Naahhh… can’t be”…. and do the calculations again… Even this time, did a quick estimate of about 10 ounces as a ‘sanity check’ on CO2 over a tile…
It really is a startling “visual”…
I have a stand of “Timber Bamboo” in my back yard that shoves up a 3 to 4 inch stem, 30 to 40 foot tall, in about a month of growth (out of the year). That means it is sucking ALL the CO2 out of a column above it of several square feet per stem. BAM!! gone from the air…
My neighbor planted a few Redwood Trees about 20 years ago. Now “several feet” circumference and headed for 100 foot tall. (They grow very fast). Some Poplars (Hybrid Black Cottonwood) and some Eucalyptus can put on 50 TONS / acre of wood per YEAR. (Yes, for most species and environments, 12 to 20 tons is more common, but 50 can be done). That’s “wet”, so you need to roughly cut it in half for dry. Still, the numbers are astounding.
IMHO, the reason CO2 has gone up in the last 200 years is the rate of forest clearing for farming over Europe, North and South America, etc. We’ve cut off a major sink and burned most of it.
Want to get CO2 scrubbed from the air? Plant a forest of ‘fast growth’ trees and stand back…
Global cement production (a big CO2 producer) used / released 377 M tons of carbon as CO2 in 2007. Oh, the panic… Yet to consume that would take about 200 x 300 miles of high growth trees (at full production) for a year. Not enough to even notice if replanted in some of the strip mined clear cut areas of The Federal Forests…
(As a rough approximation just now done, so needs checking…)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
“Emissions from cement production (377 million metric tons of carbon in 2007)”
Then remember that algae production can a few times more than that per acre… and there’s a lot more water in the world…
Sucking CO2 out of the air is NOT a problem. Nature can do it, has done it, and is very very good at it… down to about 250 – 280 ppm… then it gets slow. As does food production.
So more CO2 is a very good thing, and “less” it what happens naturally as a runaway thing… until the plants are starving again…
Short Form: Air is very light weight. CO2 is a trivial part of the air. Wood is very heavy. Doesn’t take much wood formation to suck up ALL the CO2 in a given column of air…

John F. Hultquist
September 26, 2012 8:51 pm

“henrythethird says:
September 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“So, it stands to reason . . . ”
Quite so. And it was thoughtful of you not to finish that exposition. The cognitive dissonance would have been too much for some of the CAGW crowd and some heads might explode.

John F. Hultquist
September 26, 2012 9:23 pm

E.M.Smith says:
September 26, 2012 at 8:47 pm
“ . . .replanted in some of the strip mined clear cut areas . . .

E.M., I’m wondering why you did the strike through there? Maybe it was a way of equating those two things. But, I grew up in Western Pennsylvania with a dragline operator for an uncle. My cousins and I played on the spoil heaps and swam in the water filled cuts. The only attempt to help the land recover came from a local boy scout troop that planted scotch pines. All plants grew quite slowly on these rocky and porous heaps. Later on – I had moved away – restoration efforts improved. Maybe the CO2 concentration was sufficiently low to contribute to that slow growth.
My grandparent’s small house became a hunting cabin for new owners and they planted the land in Christmas trees to pay the taxes. Many such cases of that. Many of those abandoned farms have returned to mostly natural forest. Some have gone urban. See and read about the maps, here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/AncientForest/ancient_forest6.php

Sarcasm
September 26, 2012 9:24 pm

Tree sinks… It only works if you don’t burn the product or let it decompose. Of course sequestering blocks of wood is a lot more convenient than and carbon sequestration plans I’ve seen for coal power plants, and less scary than Yucca Mountain. Yes, big government, you may store wood in my back yard.
If it could be encased in something strong, we could develop wooden skyscrapers? The hope would be a tall building denser in stored carbon than the Forrest that used to be around it.
Wood decomposes hardly at all when frozen. We could deploy massive wooden rafts in the Arctic sea ice and kill two birds at once – carbon sequestered and polar bears rescued from drowning.

AndyG55
September 26, 2012 9:32 pm

E.M.Smith
World biomass has increased significantly in the last couple of decades.
We MUST keep feeding it. More CO2 = GOOD !!
By burning coal, we are releasing long buried CO2 that SHOULD be in the atmosphere.