From the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Carbon cycle models underestimate indirect role of animals
Animal populations can have a far more significant impact on carbon storage and exchange in regional ecosystems than is typically recognized by global carbon models, according to a new paper authored by researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES).
In fact, in some regions the magnitude of carbon uptake or release due to the effects of specific animal species or groups of animals — such as the pine beetles devouring forests in western North America — can rival the impact of fossil fuel emissions for the same region, according to the paper published in the journal Ecosystems.
While models typically take into account how plants and microbes affect the carbon cycle, they often underestimate how much animals can indirectly alter the absorption, release, or transport of carbon within an ecosystem, says Oswald Schmitz, the Oastler Professor of Population and Community Ecology at F&ES and lead author of the paper. Historically, the role of animals has been largely underplayed since animal species are not distributed globally and because the total biomass of animals is vastly lower than the plants that they rely upon, and therefore contribute little carbon in the way of respiration.
“What these sorts of analyses have not paid attention to is what we call the indirect multiplier effects,” Schmitz says. “And these indirect effects can be quite huge – and disproportionate to the biomass of the species that are instigating the change.”
In the paper, “Animating the Carbon Cycle,” a team of 15 authors from 12 universities, research organizations and government agencies cites numerous cases where animals have triggered profound impacts on the carbon cycle at local and regional levels.
In one case, an unprecedented loss of trees triggered by the pine beetle outbreak in western North America has decreased the net carbon balance on a scale comparable to British Columbia’s current fossil fuel emissions.
And in East Africa, scientists found that a decline in wildebeest populations in the Serengeti-Mara grassland-savanna system decades ago allowed organic matter to accumulate, which eventually led to about 80 percent of the ecosystem to burn annually, releasing carbon from the plants and the soil, before populations recovered in recent years.
“These are examples where the animals’ largest effects are not direct ones,” Schmitz says. “But because of their presence they mitigate or mediate ecosystem processes that then can have these ramifying effects.”
“We hope this article will inspire scientists and managers to include animals when thinking of local and regional carbon budgets,” said Peter Raymond, a professor of ecosystem ecology at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
According to the authors, a more proper assessment of such phenomena could provide insights into management schemes that could help mitigate the threat of climate change.
For example, in the Arctic, where about 500 gigatons of carbon is stored in permafrost, large grazing mammals like caribou and muskoxen can help maintain the grasslands that have a high albedo and thus reflect more solar energy. In addition, by trampling the ground these herds can actually help reduce the rate of permafrost thaw, researchers say.
“It’s almost an argument for rewilding places to make sure that the natural balance of predators and prey are there,” Schmitz says. “We’re not saying that managing animals will offset these carbon emissions. What we’re trying to say is the numbers are of a scale where it is worthwhile to start thinking about how animals could be managed to accomplish that.”
The paper, which is published online in the journal Ecosystems, was inspired by a conference, “Managing Species for Regulating the Carbon Cycle,” hosted by the Yale Climate and Energy Institute in 2012.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“What we’re trying to say is the numbers are of a scale where it is worthwhile to start thinking (about how animals could be managed to accomplish that).”
Alternatively: “the numbers are of a scale where it is worthwhile to start thinking about how poorly understood the carbon cycle really is.”
I expect ‘natural’ population-dynamics in the oceans are no less complex.
I just want to know why we are so eager to “manage” everything. Nature can look after itself and outdo us besides.
Other than that, waking up to the fact that every living thing is part of the system will give the warmists something else to gnash their teeth over, at least those of them who want to kill anything that eats, breaths or lets off methane gas from the other end, including humans.
Are some Universities leaning away from alarmism now?
“Managing” wild or natural ecosystems has a notoriously poor history: from introduced species (accidentally or on purpose), to forest “burns” that elude control, to dams that do more harm than good (Johnstown PA, etc.). Even if partial understanding can be achieved, management experiments should be limited in scale and application, and reversible at need.
Gaia regulates itself to minimise radiative entropy flux to Space as it controls OLR = SW absorbed.
The flora and fauna adapt to that external constraint.
Does anyone know if the oceans carbon cycle is included in GCMs – and here I’m not thinking about solubility, but rather døde shellfish sinking to the bottom. After all the largest Carbon sink on the planet is all the chalk layers in the earth.
“mitigate” — do the fools think they can prevent carbon from returning to the atmosphere as CO2? Whether fire, or decay, or respiration (by termites, notably), it will not hide away and “mitigate” anything. Fortunately.
I just saw an article asserting that the earthworm sequesters more carbon than it releases.
Surely managing a natural balance is an oxymoron?
Friends:
The paper reported in the above essay is a breakthrough in honest evaluation of the carbon cycle.
The anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) hypothesis has three parts; viz.
1.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration results from anthropogenic emissions (i.e. emissions from human activity) of CO2.
2.,
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration increases radiative forcing to increase global temperature.
3.
The increase to radiative forcing will be enhanced by positive feedbacks in the climate system to cause “dangerous” AGW.
There are reasons to dispute each of these three parts of the AGW hypothesis, but if any one part were shown to be false then the entire AGW hypothesis would be shown to be false.
It has been asserted that part 1 is indisputable because it was assumed the natural sources and sinks of CO2 were constant and in balance prior to the anthropogenic emission. Indeed, the IPCC uses theBern Model of the carbon cycle which adopts this assumption.
Some years ago I was at a conference at the Royal Society in London. A representative of the Met.Office gave a presentation which explained how atmospheric CO2 was rising because anthropogenic CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere, and he tabulated changes in the anthropogenic sources. When he finished I stood and asked this question,
“Sir, you say the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the cause of the change to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Only this past week, Indermuhle et al. have published a paper in Nature which reports their ice-core analysis shows the atmospheric CO2 concentration fell 300 years ago. So, my question is
Where were the power stations shut 300 years ago? Failing that, can you explain why the recent change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by power stations?”
The room burst into laughter.
The speaker replied, “We only consider anthropogenic sources” and then he sat down.
One of our 1995 papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005))
showed we were able to model the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration by using 6 models of the climate cycle response to 3 very different effects and with 3 models assuming an anthropogenic cause and the other 3 assuming a natural cause.
So, if one of the six models of that paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But the findings of our paper demonstrate there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are
(a ) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
The paper reported in the above essay is a move towards accepting the truths we published in 1995.
Richard
The models also apparently do not take into account the role of freshwater bodies on the carbon cycle. Freshwater systems while small play a large role in the carbon cycle.
The study of freshwater systems is called “limnology”.
http://hanson.limnology.wisc.edu/
Several fascinating leads in the last 48 hours or so.
I know the science is settled, but I get the impression that ‘settled’ may mean, actually, ‘we are struggling to make first Order guesses about all this stuff’. Animals? Plants? The Sun? (Not Rupert Mudrake’s disreputable – on Merseyside – organ of course).
Auto
Everard: “Other than that, waking up to the fact that every living thing is part of the system will give the warmists something else to gnash their teeth over …”
Well sure. As long as you remember that they don’t consider humans a ‘living thing’ and that their teeth-gnashing is only for and about getting rid of humans to make room for ‘rewilding.’
“For example, in the Arctic, where about 500 gigatons of carbon is stored in permafrost, large grazing mammals like caribou and muskoxen can help maintain the grasslands that have a high albedo and thus reflect more solar energy. ”
Really? Looking at the infra-red image of London below it is surprising to see the grass in the parks are hotter than surrounding roads and buildings.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/02/uhi-this-is-london/
This is of course short grass and I can confirm that long grass is cooler, especially if the soil is wet.
Also, here is an albedo chart showing grass types having a low albedo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albedo-e_hg.svg
rc: “… but if any one part were shown to be false then the entire AGW hypothesis would be shown to be false.”
It’s cute when you think logic matters. If had ever mattered, they’d never have sold the hysteria until they’d validated the predictive validity of the models. It’s fine for those that you think can learn to think. And fine amongst folks that give a fig about experimental science.
For the rest, public ridicule is the order of the day. When having a dietary discussion with a vegan in leather shoes, don’t think logic is ever going to enter things.
Jquip:
Your reply to me at October 17, 2013 at 4:35 am completely fails to understand the point of my post at October 17, 2013 at 3:34 am which this link jumps to
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/17/another-modeling-shortcoming/#comment-1450763
My post began saying
It explains that the IPCC, the UK Met.Office and others have been pretending that only the anthropogenic CO2 emission is important for consideration of the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 emission. It also explains that this assumption is one of three parts of the AGW hypothesis, and the hypothesis would be disproved if any one (or more) of those parts were disproved.
My post concludes saying
But you have replied to me saying
Logic has nothing to do with it.
It has been accepted as a truth that the cause for the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the anthropogenic emission, but that assumption is illogical.
My post commented on the fact that the paper reported in the above essay is a departure from the solid adoption of the illogical assumption that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration must have an anthropogenic cause.
Richard
Jquip:
This is deliberately a second and separate response to your reply to me at October 17, 2013 at 4:35 am. My first response stated how and why your reply missed the point of what I was saying. And I did not – and do not – want to dilute that response with anything else.
This response addresses your point that
I agree, but I do not constrain the matter only to vegans and the ilk. Ridicule of the ridiculous is always appropriate and my post gave an illustration of that with my anecdote of a the question which induced laughter at the RS Conference. This link jumps to my post so you can refresh your memory of that anecdote
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/17/another-modeling-shortcoming/#comment-1450763
Richard
rc: “Logic has nothing to do with it. ”
Precisely. And a sudden onset of awareness that trees inhale what polar bears exhale isn’t going to change a thing. They’ll balance it all out with moose feet and put humans in another column. Or did you forget how the IPCC writes its reports? That will then be used as proof that it’s humans, the planetary inorganic toxin, causing it all. Look, it’s even got it’s own bar on the graph. In red.
Jquip:
Thankyou for your reply to me at October 17, 2013 at 5:27 am .
Unfortunately, you still don’t ‘get it’.
The AGW scare is unravelling. Even some Lead Authors of the IPCC are saying it has reached its sell-by date. This unravelling is because in December 2009 at Copenhagen the international political push for some kind of a successor to the Kyoyo Protocol was killed and there are no signs of its possible revival.
The basis for the scare that was universally adopted by AGW advocates – and even some AGW skeptics – was the assumption that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by humans. The paper reported in the above essay shows that this essential pillar of the AGW scare is now crumbling. Our paper did not dent it. Salby’s challenge to the pillar did not rock it. But the reported paper shows it is crumbling.
The scare has started to fade away. As I have repeatedly stated on WUWT and elsewhere, as the scare fades the need is to guard against bureaucracies which will be established in attempt to make permanent the purposes of the scare.
Opposing the scare is not now sufficient. The scare is fading and will disappear whether or not it is opposed. The paper is yet one more indication that the scare is fading, and we need to recognise that. Unless we do recognise that then we will fail to focus on the imposition of the bureaucracies which is likely to accelerate in attempt to establish them before the scare fades away.
Richard
Here is another shortcoming. How can a “Professor of Population and Community Ecology” (a sociologist) be accepted to whinge on about pine beetles and the caribou and musk oxen on their “grass lands”.
Here are pictures of the arctic “grasslands”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/156635/Musk-oxen-grazing-in-Bering-Land-Bridge-National-Preserve-western
http://www.caribouforever.com/the-barrens/habitat/
For his education, there are woodland caribou south of the tundra but they are largely browsers on twigs and shrubs. Grass isn’t a mainstay for most of these animals (exception Rocky Mountain southern meadows)
Doug Huffman says:
October 17, 2013 at 3:18 am
I just saw an article asserting that the earthworm sequesters more carbon than it releases.
============
in terms of total mass, aren’t worms the most significant land animal?
richardscourtney says:
October 17, 2013 at 5:46 am
Unless we do recognise that then we will fail to focus on the imposition of the bureaucracies which is likely to accelerate in attempt to establish them before the scare fades away.
=========
folks that have made their living from the AGW scare will try and use regulations as a means to continue their incomes as the scare fades. they will fight very hard because it is their livelihood that is threatened.
richardscourtney says:
October 17, 2013 at 3:34 am
Only this past week, Indermuhle et al. have published a paper in Nature which reports their ice-core analysis shows the atmospheric CO2 concentration fell 300 years ago. So, my question is
Where were the power stations shut 300 years ago?
===============
CO2 follows temperature. Temperature went down during the LIA and CO2 levels fell. Temperature went up since the LIA, CO2 levels rose.
If CO2 actually increased temperatures the current ice age cycles would be impossible. As temperatures went up, increasing CO2 would prevent the next ice age. As temperatures went down, declining CO2 would lock in the ice age permanently.
The changes in the earth’s orbit are much to small to explain the ice ages cycles otherwise. There simply cannot be any appreciable net warming of the earth due to increasing CO2. The ice age cycles firmly establish this fact.
Rather, since CO2 acts as a radiator, removing energy from the atmosphere, and radiating this both to the surface and space, once coupled with the effects of convection and the lapse rate, it is likely that increasing CO2 will actually result in a net cooling. That the warming we have seen for the past 150 years is nothing to do with CO2, rather it is a continuation of the natural cycle that gave us the LIA, MWP, RWP, MWP, etc, etc.
To RichardSCourtney,
Richard, I always appreciate your replies (and those of several other dedicated contributors like Jimbo) to the various WUWT posts/threads, and respect any comments from science academics such as yourself – especially when humble devout sceptics like me (I am a Graphic Designer) are unqualified to debate matters from a scientific platform. I visit Anthony’s excellent site every day, so maybe you can help me.
Here we have yet another essay questioning the balance of natural and anthropogenic CO2. We read that North Amercan ‘Pine Beetles’ could be responsible for levels of CO2 “on a scale comparable to British Columbia’s current fossil fuel emissions.” Now, although I am not alone in sharing the strong belief (and obsession) that our weather and climate remains unaffected in any way whatsover by the insignificant amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, the researchers provide a CO2 comparrison (from an isolated area of our planet) appearing to suggest, therefore, that natural CO2 should again be taken into consideration.
If this is the case, why is there no counter-evidence available of increased CO2 levels from something simple such as the ever-increasing global bread production – which is arguably both anthropogenic and natural? The CO2 produced from just one loaf of bread during yeast fermentation may be minute. Multiply this several times from our local small bakery in the nearest town, multiply this by the dozen or so bakeries within that town (including supermarket instore bakeries), then multiply by 365 days a year. Now consider every town, city, major large-scale bakery, together with the vast choice of yeast generated bread products on sale – and just within the UK alone – you begin to understand that I may actually have a valid point. Sadly, no one has yet verified that if we add this to every bakery in every country, every continent, on a daily basis, even down to a small Greek Taverna turning out home-made artisan bread for their guests, humans are probably producing enough CO2 from fermented yeast “on a scale comparable to British Columbia’s (sic) current fossil fuel emissions” – if not more, much more. To add weight to my theory, after each production run, all large-scale bread manufacturers (ie Warburtons, Hovis, etc.) sand-blast their bakery equipment and machinery with highly pressurised man-made CO2 pellets – a more efficient cleaning process compared to using water and detergent. I have deliberately left out Beer and Wine yeast fermentation for now.
My point is that no one seems to admit that the baking industry alone could well be a significant contributor to atmospheric CO2 levels on a global scale – yet it’s always about fossil fuels (and now ‘pine beetles’). I am still waiting for a scientist to prove me wrong – even though I believe CO2 has no noticeable impact on climate.
Keep up the excellent replies and thank you. I’ll check back later as I’m popping into town now to buy some bread.
GeeJam
Richard I swear you would argue with a Stop Sign you put there yourself. LOL!
Pamela Gray:
At October 17, 2013 at 8:28 am and with no reference to anything you write
Funny. Only today I supported you on another thread when someone tried to argue with one of your assertions which was right but – as usual – you were unwilling or unable to defend.
Richard