From the Helmholtz Association
Extreme weather, climate and the carbon cycle
Extreme weather and climate events like storms, heavy precipitation and droughts and heat waves prevent the uptake of 3 giga-tonnes of carbon by the global vegetation. A team of scientists under the lead of Markus Reichstein, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, investigated the effect of extremes on the carbon cycle from the terrestrial ecosystem perspective for the first time.
In the current issue of Nature (14th of August 2013), they use Earth observation methods and numerical models to show that especially extreme droughts lead to a strong reduction in the carbon sequestration of forests, grass- and croplands. This reduction in the regional and global carbon uptake has the potential to influence the global climate. Especially large scale events like the heat wave in western and southern Europe in the year 2003 provide the evidence that such extremes events have a much stronger and long lasting impact on the carbon cycle than expected so far.
One part of the question is the response of arable ecosystems: plants take up carbondioxide, soils are an important storage for the carbon produced by plants, which they release driven by increasing temperature. However, in the case of croplands we observe a complex interplay of these natural processes with the human management either increasing or reducing the impacts of an event. “In general the timing of an event in the course of the development of crops clearly influences the magnitude of the impact on the carbon cycle. Extreme temperature in spring can foster growth, prevent pollination, or have no effect at all, depending on when they appear in the cropping cycle and the type of crop” says Martin Wattenbach from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, who contributed to this part of the study. “Rice yields are reduced when temperatures rise above 37°C, but only in the short period of pollination in spring”
It is possible for farmers to mitigate extremes like droughts and heat waves by, for example, irrigation. However, they are limited by the amount of water available at the time of the event and their technical resources. Since information on spatial and temporal patterns of management practise such as irrigation and annual crop distribution during an extreme event are largely unknown, the demand for further research remains very high. In addition to this part of the carbon cycle playing a relevant role in climate, the long term supply with agricultural produce may also be affected.
Reichstein, M., Bahn, M., Ciais, P., Frank, D., Mahecha, M.D., Seneviratne, S. I., Zscheischler, J., Beer, C., Buchmann, N., Frank, D.C., Papale, D., Rammig, A., Smith, P., Thonicke, K., van der Velde, M., Vicca, S., Walz, A., and Wattenbach, M. (2013): “Climate extremes and the carbon cycle”, Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature12350, 14.08.2013
Brian H says:
August 16, 2013 at 1:27 am
Lady Life;
Here’s a little Brain Bounce for you: in North America, earthworms are an invasive, alien species. They were introduced by Europeans.
======
Not sure it is that simple?
Per:
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/~mjwetzel/IllinoisEarthworms.html
“Introduction. Reynolds and Wetzel (2004) reported 161 species of earthworms representing 37 genera in 10 families known to occur in North America north of Mexico; of these, 45 are considered introduced (Reynolds and Wetzel 2004). In a recent update of that 2004 publication, Reynolds and Wetzel (2008) expanded their scope of North American earthworm distributions to include Mexico, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Bermuda. This recent update included 253 species representing 59 genera in 10 families; of these, 67 are considered to be introductions. There are at least 14 introduced species in North America that are known only from greenhouses and other indoor cultures in one or more states from which they have been reported (but it is important to emphasize that some of these species have also been reported in ‘nature’, particularly in some of the more southern/warmer areas of the continent). “
So let’s just ask for more money for research?
I have yet to read an alarmist paper that is not littered with hints and outright demands for money.
It’s like going through a market in the East followed by begging children; except these are not children; they are informed adults who know when to jump onto a passing bandwagon. They are real scary because they are so adept at fleecing us.
From izen to Leo Morgan on August 16, 2013 at 5:57 am (bold added):
Heh.
Please see this: IPCC AR4 also gets a failing grade on 21 chapters
Based on a citizen auditing of IPCC AR4 sources, 21 out of 44 chapters have 59% or less peer-reviewed sources. This volunteer effort arose due to proven reports of “grey literature” being used that was cited as authoritative scientific facts, but included things like (see article for links) “… press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups.”
Working group 3, Chapter 4 was the lowest, had only 15% peer-reviewed sources.
However, you are incredibly lucky, as you were referenced to WG1, Ch7, which was the best of all at 96% peer-reviewed sources. You may freely assume the references were deliberately chosen to slant the results for (C)AGW-pushing purposes, as is well known, but you have better odds of finding something accurate and possibly current and usable than the rest of the IPCC report.
Have fun.
Esther Cook writes of: “… books on agriculture that heals the land.”
Agriculture does quite the opposite.
There is no more devastating activity for destroying ecosystems than farming.
Farming strips the land of all natural growth, natural habitats, natural animals and plants, and replaces huge areas with invasive species chosen by humans for their utility to humans.
izen says:
August 16, 2013 at 5:57 am
“Well unless you have a conspiracy theory which causes you to reject the most comprehensive compilation of scientific knowledge on this subject I would suggest starting with –
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-4.html
”
Izen, are you a Greenpeace member? A WWF bureaucrat? Why do you endorse that compilation of grey literature?
Well, the carbon cycle is big (20x current human production) and fast (200gt/yr), but mean? Naah, Carbon is money and we are in a depression. Watch everything grow, watch and learn.
The perturbations they mention push the cycle from k to r selected critters, but the net effect is lunch money in the cycle, as is human production.
i would suggest izen is probably just stupid.like many ordinary citizens were in the beginning,for swallowing this guff.
so this latest lot of tripe has the audacity to suggest ,that despite claims that increases in co2 are entirely man made,and increases in temperature man made as a result,there are in fact weather events taking place around the planet every year that alter the level of co2 in the atmosphere naturally ?
who ever would have thought.better not let the IPCC see this paper,they will never get funding again.
it shows how stupid some of these people are when they are using contradictory evidence to support their own failed by observation hypothesis.
@- DirkH
“Izen, are you a Greenpeace member? A WWF bureaucrat? Why do you endorse that compilation of grey literature?”
The main ‘grey’ literature in the WG1 scientific part of the report is a quote from Isaac Newton. The rest including the part about the climate carbon cycle is all based on science. If you had read the linked section you would have seen that the references given are NOT grey literature. Presumably you are not that familiar with the work you are criticising and dismissing so ignorantly.
For accuracy – Wikipedia says “Of the 182 taxa of earthworms found in the United States of America and Canada, 60 or almost 33% are invasive species.” Not ALL!
izen:
At August 16, 2013 at 8:55 am you say to DirkH
I cannot speak for DirkH but I am very familiar with that document. I read and studied every word of each its drafts and I have repeatedly studied all of its published version. It provides a one-sided and distorted version of the science which is based on selectivity in its references and distortion of some of its referenced statements.
Simply, it is biased ordure useful as a reference to one ‘side’ of the scientific debate.
However, the NIPCC Report (which I also helped produce) provides the other half of the issues. Taken together the two documents provide a useful overview of the science.
Richard
From izen on August 16, 2013 at 8:55 am:
ref: http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/IPCC-report-card.php
WG1
Chapter #-references %non-peer-reviewed
01 264 20%
02 759 5%
03 804 4%
04 257 15%
05 289 4%
06 609 7%
07 869 4%
08 686 6%
09 535 6%
10 545 5%
11 609 11%
Wow, that’s a LOT of non-peer-reviewed references.
Total WG1 references: 6226
Have you, izen, personally examined and vetted all 6226 references? Or do the titles look sufficiently science-like therefore they must be based in science? Including the personal correspondence?
Homeopathy is based in science. Many things are based in science, like Star Trek. Climate Science is based in science. Is “based in science” an absolute guarantee, no verification required, that something is scientific?
izen says:
August 16, 2013 at 8:55 am
Apparently you have never read IPCC’s own statements on grey literature. IPCC says it can’t function without grey literature. Here’s its statement last year in response to a New Scientist article:
The IPCC has always recognized that non-peer reviewed literature, such as reports from
governments and industry, or national statistics, can be crucial for the IPCC’s assessments.
The appropriate use of such literature expands the breadth and depth of the assessment by
including relevant information. At its previous meeting in Kampala in November 2011, the
Panel agreed to strengthen the rules governing the use of literature from all sources. The
procedures to validate sources of information from non-peer reviewed literature, and to ensure
its quality, were reaffirmed. The procedures specify that the use of non-peer reviewed
literature brings with it an extra responsibility for the author teams. IPCC writing teams were
explicitly required to critically assess and to review the quality and validity of all cited literature.
As in the past, copies of cited information that is not publicly or commercially available must be
held, preferably electronically, in order to be made available to reviewers upon request during
the review of IPCC draft reports. The Panel did not discuss non-peer reviewed literature at its
latest meeting in Geneva.
Here’s a list of some of its rules on grey literature:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/
IPCC does not practice science but advocacy, in which puffery is not only allowed but encouraged.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade or two re CO2 vs temperature with respect to deserts greening up. If temperatures drop and CO2 continues to rise, will this offset the more drought-prone conditions one finds in a cooling world, allowing greening to continue? Where would the balance point be?
The really interesting take-away for me is that as the rankings in the table go from “greyest” to “least grey”, it is crystal clear that over time the Working Group reports have become more and more dependent on non-peer reviewed literature.
@ur momisugly Art W (6:45AM) — LOL — nice writing and done so well that your “sarc tag” was superfluous. Thanks for the laughs.
********************************************
Well, Ian W, if you say so…. lol (you’re likely right),
but, wow. Given: … Extreme temperature in spring can foster growth, prevent pollination, or have no effect at all, depending …
I think Max Planck would say: “Your “investigations” add 6.55 × 10 *(-27th) to the knowledge of humanity”. Actually, he would have just stared, turned, and walked away in disgust. Then, seeing the sign on the outside of the building snorted, “‘Max Planck Institute?’ You’ve got to be kidding.”
As a result of reading the above article and seeing that sign, Herr Planck made the film below. “I must salvage what remains of my tattered reputation,” he said, “I must tell the world who Max Planck really was.”
First, let me say that I have never been associated with the Max Planck Institute, nor shall I ever be. Their research is garbage and……
Okay, okay, JUST KIDDING (sort of).
So, as it gets hotter, drier, wetter, etc., etc., the atmospheric concentration goes up. Since we know that warming leads CO2 concentration, that’s nice confirmation.