From the University of Arizona
As permafrost soils thaw under the influence of global warming, communities of soil microbes act as potent amplifiers of global climate change, an international study has shown.
![81225_web[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/81225_web1.jpg?resize=720%2C480&quality=83)
The findings, published in the journal Nature, should help scientists improve their simulations of future climate by replacing assumptions about the different greenhouse gases emitted from thawing permafrost with new understanding of how different communities of microbes control the release of these gases.
Earlier this year, the international team discovered that a single species of microbe, previously undescribed by science, was prominent in permafrost soils in northern Sweden that have begun to thaw under the effect of globally rising temperatures. Researchers suspected that it played a significant role in global warming by liberating vast amounts of carbon stored in permafrost soil close to the Arctic Circle in the form of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. But the actual role of this microbe — assigned the preliminary name Methanoflorens stordalenmirensis, which roughly translates to “methane-bloomer from the Stordalen Mire” — was unknown.
The new research nails down the role of the new microbe, finding that the sheer abundance of Methanoflorens, as compared to other microbial species in thawing permafrost, should help to predict their collective impact on future climate change.
“If you think of the African savanna as an analogy, you could say that both lions and elephants produce carbon dioxide, but they eat different things,” said senior author Scott Saleska, an associate professor in the UA’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and director of the UA’s new Ecosystem Genomics Institute. “In Methanoflorens, we discovered the microbial equivalent of an elephant, an organism that plays an enormously important role in what happens to the whole ecosystem.”
Significantly, the study revealed that because of these microbial activities, all wetlands are not the same when it comes to methane release.
![]() |
||||
“The models assume a certain ratio between different forms, or isotopes, of the carbon in the methane molecules, and the actual recorded ratio turns out to be different,” said lead author Carmody McCalley, a scientist at the Earth Systems Research Center at the University of New Hampshire who conducted the study while she was a postdoctoral researcher at UA. “This has been a major shortcoming of current climate models. Because they assume the wrong isotope ratio coming out of the wetlands, the models overestimate carbon released by biological processes and underestimate carbon released by human activities such as fossil-fuel burning.”
Soil microbes can make methane two different ways: either from acetate, an organic molecule that comes from plants, or from carbon dioxide and hydrogen.
“Both processes produce energy for the microbe, and the microbe breathes out methane like we breathe out carbon dioxide,” McCalley said. “But we find that in thawing permafrost, most methane initially doesn’t come from acetate as previously assumed, but the other pathway. This ratio then shifts towards previous estimates as the frozen soils are turned into wetlands and acetate becomes the preferred carbon source.”
One of the big questions facing climate scientists, according to Saleska, is how much of the carbon stored in soils is released into the atmosphere by microbial activity.
“As the ‘global freezer’ of permafrost is failing under the influence of warming, we need to better understand how soil microbes release carbon on a larger, ecosystem-wide level and what is going to happen with it,” he said.
Said UA co-author Virginia Rich: “For years, there’s been a debate about whether microbial ecology ‘matters’ to what an ecosystem collectively does — in this case, releasing greenhouse gases of different forms — or whether microbes are just slaves to the system’s physics and chemistry. This work shows that microbial ecology matters to a great degree, and that we need to pay more attention to the types of microbes living in those thawing ecosystems.”
![]() |
||||
Added McCalley: “By taking microbial ecology into account, we can accurately set up climate models to identify how much methane comes from thawing permafrost versus other sources such as fossil-fuel burning.”
###
The paper was co-authored by: Richard Wehr in the UA’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; Eun-Hae Kim in the UA Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science; Gene Tyson, Ben Woodcroft and Rhiannon Mondav of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia; Suzanne Hodgkins and Jeffrey Chanton of Florida State University; and Patrick Crill at the University of Stockholm, Sweden.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


How come everything is a “powerful greenhouse gas”? There are no wimpy greenhouse gases?
So they’ve found a new fudge factor for their models?
A serious statement that translates to more grant money. But for those of us who believe the ECS is below the IPCC lower limit: not worried.
“Slaves”? Really such an emotional description of this microbe?
“The models assume……” …..We can argue all day about the validity of GISS, HADCRU, RSS, and UAH measurements and what they mean. I’m still painfully listening…..But for God’s sake, can we drop the model BS and start really measuring stuff. Put down the video games and get back to reality, doing real science. Do any of these guys really understand that a model gives you a representation of what you tell it reality could be…and it truly is not reality itself. Scary stuff…definitely not sciemce…but scary stuff.
Well, at least it is emperical science, even if only in the service of the models. This is a common story: a NEW department gets a NEW gadget and takes it out for a spin. Predictably they discover NEW insights that require NEW funding and NEW adventures in the permafrost.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this universal process. The problem is, as they are discussing over at Climate Etc., is that new information begets new uncertainty and reveals the shallow understanding that previous scientists had. Knowledge is fractal – erery new answer begets ten new questions. Often inconvenient.
When I was young and foolish and the big bang theory was new, I believed that astrophysics was about to reveal How The Universe Actually Works. Many years, millions of new discoveries and the largest, most expensive and without doubt, coolest scientific instruments ever built, later it turns out that astrophysics utterly missed – couldn’t see, couldn’t explain, “85% of the matter in the universe.” And so it goes, back to square one.
The difference is that long term social and economic policy decisions were not being made based on theories about the big bang. It would be very unwise to make such policies based on today’s climate science which is now about where physics was in the 1940s.
Can these microbe get a paper published explaining how they differentiate anthropological warming from natural warming?
Added McCalley: “By taking microbial ecology into account, we can accurately set up climate models to identify how much methane comes from thawing permafrost versus other sources such as fossil-fuel burning.”
Wot?
Yeah, wot??
In the whole fossil-fuel burning thing, methane is generally a fuel, not an exhaust…
time series and data points of “microbial ecology” are vast and well known …
why’s your “wot” ?
Sounds like some college kids and their prof from Arizona needed to come up with a justification for the carbon credits they couldn’t afford to offset their vacation to Sweden, not to mention getting somebody else to pick up the air fare and lodging.
Yeh,
Permafrost studies in Arizona? It can get mighty cold up to Flagstaff, but still…
Article: “Soil microbes can make methane… from carbon dioxide and hydrogen… [which produces] ‘energy for the microbe, and the microbe breathes out methane like we breathe out carbon dioxide,’ McCalley said.”
I first thought that meant this process, which I doubted was really exothermic:
CO2 + 2·H2 -> CH4 + O2
But I think it really meant this process, which produces methane and water, and which is, indeed exothermic:
CO2 + 4·H2 -> CH4 + 2·H2O
But where does the hydrogen come from?
Could be anaerobic degradation of organics in the soil, working symbiotically with the microbes. This is part of the H2 cycle. The H2 and CO2 will form Methane and water…..maybe. The author assumes that someone interested to read this drivel would know that.
answer: Acetate (CH3COOH)
From their Methods section:
“The degree of C isotopic fractionation between CO2 and CH4 differs between the two main biochemical pathways of methanogenesis, namely acetoclastic (CH3COOH –> CH4 + CO2) and hydrogenotrophic (CO2 + 4H2 –> 2H2O + CH4). Carbon isotope fractionation (αC) is greater for hydrogenotrophic than for acetoclastic methano-genesis, but αH (hydrogen isotope fractionation) follows the opposite pattern: aH (hydrogenotrophic),αH (acetoclastic) (Extended Data Fig. 1; ref.19). Hence, variations in C and H isotopic compositions of CH4 that arise from variations in methanogenic pathway will be anti-correlated: shifts from hydrogenotrophic to acetoclastic production will cause C isotope ratios to increase but H isotope ratios to decline, moving along a negatively sloped ‘production line’ in H–C isotope space (Extended Data Fig. 1). Isotopic variations that arise from variations in the degree of methanotrophy, by contrast, will be positively correlated: shifts towards increasing methanotrophy will cause both C and H isotope ratios to increase along a positively sloped ‘oxidation line’ (Extended Data Fig. 1).”
http://i59.tinypic.com/nl7doo.jpg
,” McCalley said. “But we find that in thawing permafrost, most methane initially doesn’t come from acetate as previously assumed, but the other pathway.
I think its “the other” pathway that Dave was asking about.
So Acetate is still the source of H2? I assumed that H2 in the second mechanism would be provided by an independent source
So the microbes know the difference between natural and human caused warming and choose only to amplify the human caused warming? Are they trying to make us look bad? LOL. I better get on the yogaecology and love that CO2 out of the atmosphere.
” the models overestimate carbon released by biological processes and underestimate carbon released by human activities such as fossil-fuel burning.”
Really? We KNOW how much we are producing. Pretty much. Models don’t estimate that. They may project it.
Many microbes have multiple metabolic means. Selection has been harsh. They have been around for thousands of millions of years and we have been around for two. We might take a lesson.
If we ever make it out of the ice age we live in we may well be in for a lot of surprises about what microbes can do when they get out of the freezer. Not looking good for any time soon.
I quit reading when I saw Nature and models. What a bunch of BS.
A few thoughts. Permafrost is very marginal and affects quite small areas here in Sweden. It is thus pretty bold to extrapolate results on a global scale. It is rather like studying the Florida Keys to learn about forests in the United States. Permafrost really only occurs in a special type of mires palsmyrar. Most of these are quite difficult of access but Stordalenmyren is unusual in that it is right next to a railway and a main highway and there is good accomodation and food within walking distance. Very lucky coincidence.
The mire is a Nature Reserve. Description and map here (unfortunately in Swedish):
http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/norrbotten/SiteCollectionDocuments/Sv/djur-och-natur/skyddad-natur/Naturreservat/Kiruna/Beslut%20och%20BP/Stordalen_BP_2007.pdf
Secondly (and this applies to all polar methane scare scenarios). Why didn’t it happen during previous, much warmer interglacials?
By the way I’m rather familiar with both the Climate and Quaternary Geology fields in Sweden, and I’ve never heard of this Crill fellow.
+1. Thanks for raising important points about this deceptive study.
Unsubstantiated first line, “As permafrost soils thaw under the influence of global warming…”
No need to read any further.
These papers get more and more stupid with time.
That’s because intelligence is inversely proportional to temperature.
What climate change?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
The idea that permafrost only thaws under globally rising temperatures is a ridiculous bit of distraction.
The idea that a major factor in global warming is only now being described tells us the descriptions in use are not useful.
Climate obsession destroys the intellects of those seeking to profit from it. As these authors demonstrate.
I have a theory that Irish Leprechauns have caused all the warming since 1870. This theory is every bit as “scientific” was the current madness from the IPCC or the “amplification” theory of this post.
Anyone care to try to scientifically disprove my theory? (hard to do since it is no more “science” than the currently fashionable theory on how our atmosphere distribute heat around our earth)
It’s worse than we thought! Whacky Wadhams will wax warmastrophic about this for sure.
It’s back to the ghost-cult days: things you can’t see are gonna git ya! Better be scared! These monsters are going to kill Mother Gaia along with us! And only the High Priests can detect these boogies and save us from them, but it ain’t gonna be cheap!!!
What a crock.
Why is the role of black carbon in the melting of the ice and the permafrost , and the subsequent feedbacks caused—-always completely ignored?
It’s feedback cycle increases any GW, yet BC is not even considered in speculation and consternation about the cause of the pause.
The beginnings of mitigation of the practices in China, India and Indonesia etc that produce the soot from the incomplete combustion in the burning of forests and other biomass —- coincide with the duration of the pause—do they not?
When those practices are as close to being completely eliminated as possible, it may be that there will be no end to the pause—no resumption of significant warming— and any warming will be just that expected in the emergence from the LIA.
Is that inconvenient prospect the reason BC is hardly ever mentioned?
So there is ‘stuff’ being released because of global warming; except there is no global warming. … so?
Insignificant — methane has flat-lined for yrs.
If the permafrost is melting, causing more of this microbe-released methane to cause warming – yet warming over the past 5 years or so has been effectively nill – does that mean that when we subtract the warming caused by the microbial methane that the average temperature before the microbe-based adjustment has been cooling?