From a long line of missing things in climate models and the University of Texas at Austin:
Symbiotic fungi inhabiting plant roots have major impact on atmospheric carbon, scientists say
AUSTIN, Texas — Microscopic fungi that live in plants’ roots play a major role in the storage and release of carbon from the soil into the atmosphere, according to a University of Texas at Austin researcher and his colleagues at Boston University and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. The role of these fungi is currently unaccounted for in global climate models.
Some types of symbiotic fungi can lead to 70 percent more carbon stored in the soil.
“Natural fluxes of carbon between the land and atmosphere are enormous and play a crucial role in regulating the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, in turn, Earth’s climate,” said Colin Averill, lead author on the study and graduate student in the College of Natural Sciences at UT Austin. “This analysis clearly establishes that the different types of symbiotic fungi that colonize plant roots exert major control on the global carbon cycle, which has not been fully appreciated or demonstrated until now.”
“This research is not only relevant to models and predictions of future concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, but also challenges the core foundation in modern biogeochemistry that climate exerts major control over soil carbon pools,” added Adrien Finzi, co-investigator and professor of biology at Boston University.
Averill, Finzi and Benjamin Turner, a scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, published their research this week in Nature.
Soil contains more carbon than both the atmosphere and vegetation combined, so predictions about future climate depend on a solid understanding of how carbon cycles between the land and air.
Plants remove carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis in the form of carbon dioxide. Eventually the plant dies, sheds leaves, or loses a branch or two, and that carbon is added to the soil. The carbon remains locked away in the soil until the remains of the plant decompose, when soil-dwelling microbes feast on the dead plant matter and other organic detritus. That releases carbon back into the air.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: This Eastern Hemlock stands at Harvard Forest.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
One of the limits that both the plants and the soil-dwelling microbes share is the availability of nitrogen, an essential nutrient for all life. Most plants have a symbiotic relationship with mycorrhizal fungi, which help extract nitrogen and nutrients from the soil and make that nitrogen available for the plants to use. Recent studies have suggested that plants and their fungi compete with the soil microbes for the nitrogen available in the soil and that this competition reduces decomposition in the soil.
There are two major types of the symbiotic fungi, ecto- and ericoid mycorrhizal (EEM) fungi and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi. EEM fungi produce nitrogen-degrading enzymes, which allows them to extract more nitrogen from the soil than the AM fungi extract.
Examining data from across the globe, Averill and his colleagues found that where plants partner with EEM fungi, the soil contains 70 percent more carbon per unit of nitrogen than in locales where AM fungi are the norm.
The EEM fungi allow the plants to compete with the microbes for available nitrogen, thus reducing the amount of decomposition and lowering the amount of carbon released back into the atmosphere.
“This study is showing that trees and decomposers are really connected via these mycorrhizal fungi, and you can’t make accurate predictions about future carbon cycling without thinking about how the two groups interact. We need to think of these systems holistically,” said Averill.
The researchers found that this difference in carbon storage was independent of and had a much greater effect than other factors, including the amount of plant growth, temperature and rainfall.
Averill is a student in the ecology, evolution and behavior graduate program in the lab of Christine Hawkes, associate professor in the Department of Integrative Biology.
Additional contact: Lee Clippard, media relations, University of Texas at Austin, 512-232-0675, clippard@austin.utexas.edu
cnxtim says:
January 9, 2014 at 11:48 pm
It beggars belief that anyone with a scintilla of science or chemistry in their schooling would accept carbon dioxide being called carbon. If you were to do so in any elementary high school exam it would earn you a fail mark.
As said before, one is looking at the carbon balance, not the CO2 balance, because CO2 in the atmosphere is not CO2 in the oceans, as most carbon in the oceans is in the form of bicarbonates and carbonates. Worse for vegetation: CO2 after intake is transformed into sugars, starch , cellulose, fats, and lots of other chemicals. Thus how would you make that in a CO2 balance? Carbon remains carbon, in whatever molecule it is incorporated. It is the carbon which must be balanced…
{ Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 9, 2014 at 4:05 pm
It doesn’t matter that fungi/roots are double the sinks they were thought or that volcanoes emit 10 times more CO2 than earlier estimates. Somewhere halve the human emissions are stored and that is all that counts. }
I think you missed my point.
I couldn’t care less about the accuracy of CO2 measurements and the contribution of man. It is what it is, i.e.of miniscule effect on temperatures (which is a pi$$ poor metric). Without elaborating, calculations of your “somewhat half” in my opinion are erroneous. My analysis suggests the net % immobilization of CO2 in sinks (of any variety) is increasing with temperature. More fungi, more deposition in ocean “cycling”, etc. This necessarily implies the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is greater than estimated, but sink immobilization is also greater and increasing. A shift in the graphical ordinate, if you will.
Forgot–
In my estimation, that is what this study validates, and the one I posted previously.
“The soil contains more carbon than all living plants and the atmosphere combined.”
– perhaps much more.
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen
Ferdinand Engelbeen should definitely refresh your sources of knowledge about the carbon cycle.
“… the three main reservoirs: atmosphere, oceans and vegetation …”
POC, DIC, DOC – yes, but it is not true that “vegetation”. Vegetation is mainly an “operator” C, but relatively small (550 – maybe 1000, especially Marine Biota – 2-4 Pg C) reservoir. Large land reservoir it remainders – detritus – dead biomass (mainly in the permafrost and forest-steppes of 1,200 – 2,100) + soil. They should be treated as one. They provide a direct connection even larger reservoir (organic sedimentary: carbonates, fossil fuels etc..,) Removing (adding people) carbon from – to the annual cycle.
The differences between the estimates for (only) the soil extend c. 800 Pg C (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKwHxOvTsceKVDo5x-rMzFZ-fgJF6iEuiJPvaW33yVPlHZL3ei – 1500-2300 – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg/460px-Carbon_cycle.jpg) … That difference alone was as much as under an atmosphere or slightly more.
About soil respiration recent work (2010) said that it was 98 + / – 12 Pg C.
“The carbon cycle in the past was quite stable …”
It is also not true.
Even the creator of Bern model are large (as for Them) doubt.
Here: Temporal Shifts in Terrestrial Uptake of Atmospheric CO 2 (http://cmi.princeton.edu/annual_reports/2010/carbon_science/sink.php) in the context of the supposed deficiency of N), they write: “Last year, the Sarmiento Group detected an abrupt increase in the net land uptake of CO2 after 1988.”
“The increase in uptake (0.8 Pg C/yr) seems to be linked to the atmospheric growth rate, and ENSO variability and volcanic eruptions were shown to have been insufficient to cause the shift.”
“… terrestrial NPP is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in predicting future atmospheric CO 2 , in part due to parameterizations of plant physiology and carbon allocation. Ecosystem models currently require numerous parameters which are typically assigned one of many possible values [!] from the literature […].”
Of course, interannual changes by this study for land-based sources is max 2 PgC, but: “… it was not possible to determine the exact timing and nature of the increase robustly by visual inspection …”
“Thus, a sophisticated statistical methodology was developed and applied to objectively determine the nature and timing of the shift in the net land uptake.”
Probably with a big participation estimates based on ice cores a la Frank et al. 2010 …
“Additional efforts are necessary to further investigate this step change in terrestrial carbon uptake and its causes. The NASA Carbon Cycle Science Program has awarded a grant to the Sarmiento Group and collaborators at JPL and UCLA for the detection and attribution of rapid large-scale shifts in the terrestrial carbon cycle.”
The Gentlemen, however, I no longer believe …
„… if nitrogen supplies were sufficient …”
And this is no one really knows …
“Neither are the oceans or vegetation the cause of the increase: 1°C increase in temperature gives maximum 17 ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere (Henry’s law, solubility curve of CO2 in seawater) and any release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease…”
It is also in part (ocean “biological”) is not true – a very big mistake.
We do not know practically nothing about the size of a gross (not net) sources such as upwelling, which in the past (it changed rapidly) was several times greater than the value derived from physical Henry’s law.
If Ferdinand Engelbeen give me a reliable size of the source (of course, gross, net upwelling is probably sink) …
Bart says:
January 9, 2014 at 11:24 pm
The Keeling curve has only a superficial resemblance to half of what would be the accumulated human CO2 emissions. It is an illusion, and not even a very good one. CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly driven by global temperatures, as the excellent fit between these two curves signifies.
Round 5 of the battle…
For bwanajohn and dabbio: this discussion between Bart and me is ongoing for a few years now.
In short: everybody (including the IPCC and others at the other side of the fence) agree that short-term variations in temperature induce short term variations in the CO2 rate of change (in fact in the sink rate, not the source rate…). The discussion is about the decadal trend. According to Bart and Salby, temperature is also the cause of the trend. According to me (and a lot of other skeptics, like Willis Eschenbach, Fred Singer and others), the trend is caused by human emissions…
First compare the trend in CO2 rate of change with the trend of the derivative of the temperature.
There is no trend in the temperature derivative at all. And the derivative shows the same variability as the variability in CO2, only with a lead of 90 deg. That is easily explained: Any change in temperature is followed by a change in CO2 level, following a sinusoid in the temperature with a lag of ~90 deg. The derivatives of T and CO2 shift everything back with 90 deg, with still the same 90 deg lag of dCO2 after dT. That also makes that the variability in T matches the variability in dCO2 perfectly in timing. But that has not the slightest physical meaning.
Anyway, dT has no slope, thus is not the cause of the slope of dCO2, but is certainly the cause of the variability of dCO2 around its slope.
Why is there a match between T and the slope of dCO2? Because both are near linear over the past 50 years. One can match any two linear slopes simply by choosing the right factor and offset…
The problem is in the amplitude of the variability: the larger the difference in slopes, the more the amplitude of the calculated variability of dCO2 differs from reality…
See here for the correct factor between T and dCO2 with the same data of Bart.
There is no such a problem in matching the amplitudes if one uses the direct effect of dT on dCO2…
Why is there a slope in dCO2? The reason is that the increase in the atmosphere was slightly quadratic over time, as human emissions also increased slightly quadratic over time at twice the rate of increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
That makes that the derivative of the CO2 increase has a linear slope and that the derivative of T has zero slope…
Bart has an alternative theory: at the same time that temperature increased, the deep ocean upwelling increased too, which combination is the cause of the increase of CO2.
Besides that that violates about all known observations, the main problem would be that that leads to an increase in circulation of all CO2 through the atmosphere (but still overall ~4 GtC more sink than source), thus leading to a decrease in CO2 turnover in the atmosphere. But there is not the slightest hint of a decrease in residence time in the atmosphere, to the contrary…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
In reply to your post at January 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm which accurately stated
Sorry about the formatting error in my post at January 10, 2014 at 7:20 am.
I hope it is intelligible.
Richard
Clearly, the error made my post unintelligible.
This is a repost
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
In reply to my post at January 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm which accurately stated
your post at January 10, 2014 at 5:12 am begins by saying
This is a clear demonstration that I was correct when in my post I wrote
The ice core data are direct measurements of the gas trapped in the ice.
The ice core data are NOT direct measurements of the CO2 concentration when the gas was trapped in the ice.
There are several reasons for this but one is sufficient to demonstrate that the ice core data are proxy data and not direct measurements.
The ice solidifies from fern which is porous. This porous layer builds up until the ice solidifies. During this time the air is pumped in and out of the layer by variations in atmospheric pressure (i.e. weather). This mixes the air in the layer until it solidifies. And the IPCC says that Siple takes 83 years to solidify.
Thus, the trapped air contains an average of the CO2 concentration which existed over 83 years. The effect is to provide CO2 concentration indications similar to those which would exist for a year if the ice solidified each year but the measurements were subjected to an 83-year running mean.
The Mauna Loa data is the longest time series of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements. It has been collected since 1958 (i.e. only 56 years) so it is not possible to obtain an 83-year running mean of it. Indeed, if one applies a 56-year average of the Mauna Loa data one only obtains a single value of atmospheric CO2 concentration which provides no indication of a change.
Clearly, ice core data is proxy data which cannot be directly compared to the Mauna Loa data.
There are other reasons why ice core data is not “direct measurement” of atmospheric CO2 concentration, too. And similar points can be made about the stomata data.
I now anticipate a long diatribe of excuses about why the ice core data are “direct measurements” (they are not) and stomata data are proxy data ( they and ice core data are proxy data).
The reality is as I said in my post
Richard
PS I hope this is right this time.
Tim Clark says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:42 am
No problem with increased uptake of carbon in the biosphere with higher temperatures, but the uptake by the oceans is less with higher temperatures: temperature plays a role in increased biolife but that is less than the effect of temperature on the solubility of CO2 in seawater.
The main increase in sink rate for both oceans and land vegetation is by the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, which is far more important than temperature at the equatorial source and polar sink places: 1°C increase in temperatur equalizes with 17 ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere, but the increase in the atmosphere is already 110 ppmv (70 ppmv since 1960)…
The same for the uptake of CO2 by land plants.
Richard
Like you I have had long conversations with Ferdinand-who I resect greatly-concerning co2 and ice core data..
In looking at other proxy data such as tree rings and valves, it is clear they have some merit when compared to a 50 year average of a data set such as CET.
In figure 2 you can see there is indeed some correlation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
However, they don’t pick up at all on the natural variation that we see in the equivalent annual and decadal record. Climate is FAR more variable than it appears from the 50 year record. I would liken it to a coarse sieve through which the finer grains can fall
I suspect that ice core data smooths and changes data in such a way as to make it worthless as an accurate record, just as other proxies such as tree rings have a tenuous grasp on climate reality
350ppm was not at all an uncommon measurement from the old chemical analysis (yes I know the supposed problems Ferdinand) and 400ppm was considered the norm in the warm 1930’s.
tonyb
richardscourtney says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:37 am
The ice core data are direct measurements of the gas trapped in the ice.
The ice core data are NOT direct measurements of the CO2 concentration when the gas was trapped in the ice.
Still the ice core data are direct measurements of CO2 in the gas bubbles, compared to stomata data which are proxies: there is some (rough) correlation between stomata data and CO2 levels in the previous growing season, but in no way they are direct measurements of CO2 levels. Which makes a world of difference.
Ice core CO2 data are quite accurate measurements of the CO2 levels over a mix of years, that is true. But the average CO2 level doesn’t change over the period of the resolution when one mixes several years.
Clearly, ice core data is proxy data which cannot be directly compared to the Mauna Loa data.
There is no problem at all to compare the ice core data of Law Dome with Mauna Loa or South Pole data: there is an overlap of ~20 years between the 2 datasets (1960-1980). The resolution of 2 out of 3 of the Law Dome ice cores is about a decade: the average gas age at bubble closing depth is only 7 years younger than in the atmosphere above it:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_overlap.jpg
Any sustained increase of 2 ppmv over a decade can be detected in the Law Dome ice cores or a peak of 20 ppmv lasting only one year would be detected…
The same for a 2 ppmv drop in CO2 sustained over 20 years for the third Law Dome ice core (taken downslope, resolution ~20 years, going back ~1000 years in time). That made it possible to see the CO2 drop between the MWP and LIA of only 6 ppmv…
Anyway, the resolution of all ice cores, even those with the worst resolution is good enough to detect any increase of CO2, even much less than the current one, over the past 800 kyears, which is not the case. And certainly not the case over the past 10,000 years, where we have ice cores with a resolution of ~40 years (Taylor Dome):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg
So, it is an error to build an edifice of theory from assumptions of low and stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration which may or may not have existed.
If you can find any peak of 110 ppmv (or even much less) like the current one, in any ice core, you may have a point. But there are hardly any changes in the ice cores of any resolution over the past 10,000 years… One can discuss about the variability within the resolution of the ice core, which may go undetected, but the low pre-industrial CO2 levels are rock solid…
Again, the carbon cycle is of high interest, but plays a minor role in the cause of the current increase, except for the remarkable linear increase in sink capacity over time…
semczyszakarkadiusz says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:49 am
I am not sure that I understand all your objections, but by “vegetation” I do include the whole biosphere and its derivatives: plants, fungi, microbes, insects, animals… The oxygen balance measures the net result of the whole biosphere, as well on land above and below ground as in the oceans. Plants absorb CO2 and at the same time produce O2 in stoichiometric quantities. When plants die or are eaten, oxygen is used and CO2 produced. by soil bacteria, insects and animals, again in stoichiometric quantities.
Oxygen use for fossil fuel burning can be calculated from fuel sales x burning efficiency. The difference between the calculated and observed O2-decline is the net balance of the whole biosphere… The balance shows a net deficit of oxygen use, thus the whole biosphere is a net producer of oxygen, thus a net sink for CO2 and preferentially 12CO2. No matter where the real sink is situated: the greeening earth (density, area) or in roots and more permanent storage of debris (peat, browncoal, coal)…
Ferdinand Englebeen:
You seem as one who does not allow for any possibility that the carbon cycle is not yet fully understood.I do not have the grasp of the subject that you and others do, but I am acutely aware that this whole business of AGW is based on false assumptions, which assumptions are based on inadequate appreciations of natural processes. The theoreticians simply assume that they have the complete and true picture and spin out the theory and calculations accordingly; the whole of their work erected on an flimsy foundation.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:19 am
“According to Bart and Salby, temperature is also the cause of the trend.”
You must first define the variable. The trend (or, first order polynomial component) in the rate of change is caused by temperatures. The trend in absolute concentration is merely modulated by temperatures.
“There is no trend in the temperature derivative at all.”
Immaterial. Atmospheric CO2 is not a direct function of temperature, but of its integral.
“But that has not the slightest physical meaning.”
It has profound physical meaning. It indicates that CO2 is related to the integral of temperature.
“Anyway, dT has no slope, thus is not the cause of the slope of dCO2, but is certainly the cause of the variability of dCO2 around its slope.”
No, it is not the cause of the variability. It is 90 deg out of phase. T is the cause of variability in dCO2.
“One can match any two linear slopes simply by choosing the right factor and offset…”
But, this factor is precisely the same one needed to match the variability.
“See here for the correct factor between T and dCO2 with the same data of Bart.”
The relationship of bulk, globally averaged variables is not precise. This is a limitation of the observations. But, the implications are still readily discernible: temperatures drive the rate of change of CO2.
“Why is there a slope in dCO2? The reason is that the increase in the atmosphere was slightly quadratic over time…”
The reason is that there is a slope in temperatures.
“Bart has an alternative theory…”
As you say, it is an alternative theory, actually an hypothesis. But, I do not claim it is the theory. Results such as this article documents could indicate that the originating temperature modulated dominant source is biota of the land and/or seas.
mpainter says:
January 10, 2014 at 9:17 am
“You seem as one who does not allow for any possibility that the carbon cycle is not yet fully understood.”
Yes, and treating highly uncertain data as precise and comprehensive leads to circular reasoning.
tonyb:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at January 10, 2014 at 7:41 am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/now-its-the-fungi-carbon-footprint-that-isnt-in-climate-models/#comment-1531548
I, too, have great respect for Ferdinand, but on the subject of the carbon cycle he adopts a blinkered view which supports his ‘true belief’ in an anthropogenic cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. His belief may be right or it may be wrong, but he closes his mind to anything which challenges his belief.
For example, in my post at January 10, 2014 at 7:37 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/now-its-the-fungi-carbon-footprint-that-isnt-in-climate-models/#comment-1531543
which your post comments, I wrote
At January 10, 2014 at 8:22 am Ferdinand has replied to that with a long diatribe of debateable excuses and assertions about why the ice core data are good and the stomata data are not.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/now-its-the-fungi-carbon-footprint-that-isnt-in-climate-models/#comment-1531590
Richard
Mushroom carbon management
Leave them in the dark and feed them bullshit…it all makes sense…
GO, BART! #(:))
(I was so pleased to see you deftly wielding your devastating Sword of Truth after I had mentioned you in my post that I just had to say so! Glad you made an appearance. I hope all is well in that semi-hostile workplace… have you found anyone of like mind there, yet? Pretty lonely, no doubt. Hang in there (and hang OUT, here! We need you) ihopethisdoesn’toffendyoubutyouareoneofthoseiregularlyprayfor)
Take care.
J.
*********************************************
Dear Richard, glad you are back. I hope Sue is much, much, better, now. J.
@ur momisugly Piper Paul (re: 1:21pm yesterday) — I’m sorry I took so l long to tell you this: SUPER-WITTY and fun post (some of it was over my non-software engineer-head, but enough was comprehensible to this computer science — business (you know how little Comp. Sci., I, thus, know, heh, heh) major to “get” a lot of it).
Thanks for the humor!
Janice Moore:
Thankyou for the interest in Sue. She is much better, thankyou. Prognosis is now very good.
I again left because my mere presence was attracting trolls so my contributions were providing net harm to WUWT. I feared this was happening again in one thread but that turned out to be only a crook trying to rob people. I hope to stay this time.
We need differing opinions and ideas from honest contributors so, for example, debate between
Ferdinand and Bart deserves to be encouraged for the benefit of us all. Trolls attempt to prevent rational discussion and need to be slammed.
Richard
mpainter says:
January 10, 2014 at 9:17 am
You seem as one who does not allow for any possibility that the carbon cycle is not yet fully understood.
To the contrary, I am fully aware that a lot of details of the carbon cycle are not even known, let it understood. But the point is that you don’t need any detail of the carbon cycle to see that humans are the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. All you need to know is that the human emissions are larger than the increase in the atmosphere. That is what the carbon balance shows: the overall levels. Not the details. The figures (for 2011):
increase in the atmosphere = emissions + natural releases – natural sinks
4.5 GtC = 9 GtC + natural releases – natural sinks
natural releases – natural sinks = -4.5 GtC
or the natural carbon cycle has 4.5 GtC more sink than source and thus its contribution to the increase in the atmosphere is zero, nada, nothing. No need to know any individual carbon flow in or out. No need to know where the 4.5 GtC more sink than source is going to.
There is one exception on this reasoning, as Bart insists: if the natural inputs increase at an enormous rate, with very fast sinks, the increased circulation would increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, without help of human emissions.
But that violates about every observation:
The source can’t be the biosphere: that is a proven sink for CO2, not a source, neither is there any indication of a huge increase in the seasonal cycle.
The source can’t be the oceans: the 13C/12C ratio in the oceans is higher than that of the atmosphere, including the air-water isotopic fractionation. Thus any substantial extra release from the oceans would INcrease the ratio in the atmosphere, but we see a firm DEcrease in 13C/12C ratio in atmosphere and ocean surface layers:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
If the oceans were the main cause of the increase, as Bart indicates, then the increase must parallel human emissions in exactly the same ratio and exactly the same time frame. That would imply a threefold increase in circulation 1960-2011, for which is not the slightest indication in the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere…
Richard — that is wonderful news. Thanks for responding. Janice
To climatereason:
You wrote in part:
You resected him?! And greatly? Outrageous! Get out your scalpel
and restore him to normal at once!
For the non-medical folks here, that’s a joke–a “resection” is a surgical removal
of all or part of an organ.
{ Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 10, 2014 at 7:39 am
Tim Clark says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:42 am }
1. The oceans aren’t warming.
2. The article I first posted states that aquatic biolife is increasing.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 9, 2014 at 2:25 pm
“Sorry to disappoint you, but it aren’t the oceans that cause the seasonal swings in the NH, it is vegetation.”
————–
Your mimicry of piffle doesn’t impress me any. And I do not think that “seasonal swing” is limited to the NH …. but you can prove me wrong by citing a reference to equivalent monthly Mona Loa CO2 data that is/was recorded at the same latitude/altitude in the SH.
And don’t be forgettin that Mona Loa, Hawaii is located at 20°N latitude and 3,758 miles southwest of the US west coast and 6,196 miles east of the Asian coast …. which is a fer piece from any vegetation growth in the NH.
“The mid to northern forests start to grow new leaves progressively northwards in spring and reach their maximum growth end summer when the cold starts getting in and progressively goes southwards. ”
—————-
Me thinks you are in dire need of a “crash course” in Botany 101.
First of all, the mid to northern forests do not constitute all of the vegetation growth in the NH.
Spring vegetation growth (new leaves) across the Gulf Coast and California (and on around the earth) begins 1st of January and moves progressively northwards to June 15th. Initial “new” growth is accomplished via sugars that are stored in the roots and only after the leaves develop is CO2 absorbed. Thus atmospheric CO2 begins being absorbed in massive quantities about mid-January and increases exponentially as the “new growth” moves steadily northward in sync with the Sun’s northward movement toward the Spring Equinox (equator) and onward to its June Solstice position at latitude 23.44° N.
Reference map: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/wildseed/info/6.1.html
And the above in no way correlates with the yearly max CO2 ppm that occurs in mid May of each and every year.
And the growth of annuals stops long before end-of-summer because next-year’s supply of sugars has to be stored in the roots. And the “cold getting in” does little more than slows up the photosynthesis, regardless of whether said cold occurs in the Spring, Summer or Fall. It is the progressively decreasing hours of daylight that “shuts down” plant growth and/or photosynthesis as the Sun moves farther south toward the Equator.
“Meanwhile fallen leaves and debris from previous years is decaying all year round, somewhat more in summer and especially fall, but even under snow in the forests of Alaska…
”
————-
Just mimicry of piffle and more piffle, that was.
Now you are in dire need of a “crash course” in bacteriology, fungi, molds and mildews. Or you could just tell me the reason and/or purpose for which you own/use a refrigerator/freezer. And please don’t tell its sole purpose is for keeping your beer cold and for making ice cubes for your soda pop.
And biomass “under the snow” in Alaska or Siberia will NOT decay any faster than the biomass you have in your refrigerator, which is pretty damn slow and will keep for weeks and weeks iffen it weren’t for those silly molds that slowly grow in those cold temperatures. And any biomass you have stored in your freezer will not rot or decay for a year or two or three. It might get “freeze-dried” but it won’t spoil rot or decay. Ask your Mother, she will tell you the same thing.
And “NO”, leaves and debris from previous years don’t decay especially quicker in the fall …. and that’s because it is either too damn dry or too damn cold for the microbes. Why don’t you collect 4 or 5 bushel of those dead leaves and twigs and debris … and chock your refrigerator full with half of it and dump the rest of it on the kitchen floor and then watch it for the next 12 months to see which one of the two rots or decays the quickest.
“ That vegetation is leading the dance can be seen in the opposite swings of δ13C in the NH:”
——————
Well you sure as ell aren’t seeing any opposite swings of δ13C that is the result of fall or winter rotting and decaying of dead vegetative biomass.
“The southern hemisphere has a lot less land/vegetation and has very little seasonal variation:”
————————–
Yup, but 80% of the SH is ocean … and the ocean is the greatest CO2 sink in existence. And the Northern Hemisphere is only 61% ocean.
“Neither are the oceans or vegetation the cause of the increase: 1°C increase in temperature gives maximum 17 ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere (Henry’s law, solubility curve of CO2 in seawater) ”
——————————
Only need an 8 ppm increase not a 17 ppm increase …. but you can multiply that 17 ppmv CO2 by 20% more ocean surface times the temperature change of the surface water in the SH to see how much CO2 is being ingassed and outgassed between summer and winter.
“and any release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease…”
————————–
Gimme a break, the ingassing/outgassing of CO2 by liquid water is NOT isotope dependent. Besides, you really don’t know the actual source of the atmospheric CO2.
“ And vegetation is a proven sink for CO2, not a source…”
——————–
Silly man, if it’s a sink then it is also a source. Or did you forget you were arguing against my Refrigerator/Freezer Law?