Climate Craziness of the Week – AGW could trigger plants and soil in tipping point attack

Yes, somehow, more plants growing due to increased CO2 will cause more carbon dioxide in a vicious cycle. Notice three things about this study: 1. The word “could” 2. “modeling work”. 3. Lack of any paleo reference to such an event in Earth’s past during higher periods of CO2.

Attack_of_the_monster_plantsFrom Princeton: Dirty pool: Soil’s large carbon stores could be freed by increased CO2, plant growth

An increase in human-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could initiate a chain reaction between plants and microorganisms that would unsettle one of the largest carbon reservoirs on the planet — soil.

Researchers based at Princeton University report in the journal Nature Climate Change that the carbon in soil — which contains twice the amount of carbon in all plants and Earth’s atmosphere combined — could become increasingly volatile as people add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, largely because of increased plant growth. The researchers developed the first computer model to show at a global scale the complex interaction between carbon, plants and soil, which includes numerous bacteria, fungi, minerals and carbon compounds that respond in complex ways to temperature, moisture and the carbon that plants contribute to soil.

Although a greenhouse gas and pollutant, carbon dioxide also supports plant growth. As trees and other vegetation flourish in a carbon dioxide-rich future, their roots could stimulate microbial activity in soil that in turn accelerates the decomposition of soil carbon and its release into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the researchers found.

This effect counters current key projections regarding Earth’s future carbon cycle, particularly that greater plant growth could offset carbon dioxide emissions as flora take up more of the gas, said first author Benjamin Sulman, who conducted the modeling work as a postdoctoral researcher at the Princeton Environmental Institute.

“You should not count on getting more carbon storage in the soil just because tree growth is increasing,” said Sulman, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at Indiana University.

On the other hand, microbial activity initiated by root growth could lock carbon onto mineral particles and protect it from decomposition, which would increase long-term storage of carbon in soils, the researchers report.

Whether carbon emissions from soil rise or fall, the researchers’ model depicts an intricate soil-carbon system that contrasts starkly with existing models that portray soil as a simple carbon repository, Sulman said. An oversimplified perception of the soil carbon cycle has left scientists with a glaring uncertainty as to whether soil would help mitigate future carbon dioxide levels — or make them worse, Sulman said.

“The goal was to take that very simple model and add some of the most important missing processes,” Sulman said. “The main interactions between roots and soil are important and shouldn’t be ignored. Root growth and activity are such important drivers of what goes on in the soil, and knowing what the roots are doing could be an important part of understanding what the soil will be doing.”

The researchers’ soil-carbon cycle model has been integrated into the global land model used for climate simulations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) located on Princeton’s Forrestal Campus.

###

Benjamin N. Sulman, Richard P. Phillips, A. Christopher Oishi, Elena Shevliakova, and Stephen W. Pacala. 2014. Microbe-driven turnover offsets mineral-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO2. Nature Climate Change. Article published in December 2014 print edition. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2436

The work was supported by grants from NOAA (grant no. NA08OAR4320752); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (grant no. 2011-67003-30373); and Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative sponsored by BP.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

104 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Jordan
December 27, 2014 9:18 am

The Princeton/Indiana climate computer models failed to account for the most important effect of their “greenhouse gas and pollutant” on the processes deep within the soil, that of angering the Mole People:

For some real science, here is a reference describing commercial greenhouses adding CO2 to their atmospheres. For the conditions in the reference, the beneficial effect saturates at about 1,200 ppm:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Not one word about those pesky Mole People.

RobertBobbert GDQ
Reply to  Neil Jordan
December 27, 2014 8:03 pm

Neil Jordan
“Angering The Mole People”
This response to this “Soil ‘study is so classic that it goes beyond classic and requires something like Beyonderererer Classicerererererest to fully express our appreciation and I recommend you patent the phrase now as I intend to work it into every conversation I have with the alarmist population.
“yes I know we are fatally damaging the galaxy and the soil but even worse we are raising the ire of the Mole People and the repercussions will .be enormous. (CAMP).
Catastrophic Anger Mole People.
That should get their attention Hey!
Do not not count your chickens yet but I am reliably informed that a certain MA’AM from a certain PALACE is shining a sword and your presence and bowing is required..
Australia and the World salute you Sir.
Any other good responses using “Angering The Mole People” to annoy the living daylights of the alarmaramas’ would go down well..
With the permission of Sir Neil of course.

Alan Robertson
December 27, 2014 9:18 am

Feed me, Seymour.

Brian
December 27, 2014 9:20 am

It’s my understanding that organic carbon is neither created nor destroyed and that all organic carbon on Earth, in whatever form, has been part of the ecosystem at one time or another. Is this correct?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Brian
December 27, 2014 9:36 am

The term “organic”, as applied to chemistry, means “containing carbon”, but the term has the widespread meaning of being derived from life- an organism. While your understanding that C cycles through the ecosystem is correct, there is a growing body of evidence which indicates that the deep mantle of earth may contain quantities of C which have never entered the cycle of life. From the building block of the Hydrogen atom, has Nature produced all matter.

Silver ralph
Reply to  Brian
December 27, 2014 9:46 am

Eh???
Is ‘organic carbon’ C16 or perhaps C19. Anyone know?
/sarc.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Silver ralph
December 27, 2014 9:56 am

I see Santa brought you a new pair of the same smartypants that he brought me.

Mike M.
Reply to  Brian
December 27, 2014 11:34 am

Brian,
The statement “organic carbon is neither created nor destroyed” is not correct. The food you eat consists largely of organic carbon. When you metabolize that food, it gets oxidized to CO2 – a form of inorganic carbon. Plants take CO2 from the air and turn it back into organic carbon. CO2 dissolves in water to form bicarbonate and carbonate. Organisms use that to make their hard parts (bones teeth, shells, …) which are also a form of inorganic carbon. Some of that forms sediments and, eventually, carbonate rocks such as limestone. Geological processes can recycle that into CO2, emitted from volcanoes.
Almost all carbon in the crust, atmosphere, and oceans has been part of the ecosystem at some point and will again be part of the ecosystem in the future. Probably all organic carbon has been part of the ecosystem at some point.

December 27, 2014 9:59 am

I find some difference between the news release and the abstract.
http://roskasaitti.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/outo-tulkinta-co2-lisays-vahentaa-hiilta-maaperassa/
So I think much of crazyness is added to the news release.

n.n
December 27, 2014 10:06 am

The soil seems ambivalent to warm and cold states. It has no stake in climate variability. There is, however, a consensus among plants, that warm states are preferable. 1 in 10 plants support increased CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming.

n.n
Reply to  n.n
December 27, 2014 10:08 am

correction: 9 in 10 plants support increased CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming.

Reply to  n.n
December 27, 2014 11:35 am

There ya go! And I thought it was 97% 🙂

December 27, 2014 10:14 am

http://www.principia-scientific.org/chaos-and-subsoil-where-science-prospers.html
I spend too much time looking for ways to flip this idiocy.

PiperPaul
December 27, 2014 11:15 am

A+B+CO2=catastrophe for me and you.

steve oregon
December 27, 2014 12:04 pm

“Pollutant”?
ST_U
It’s a real human crisis to have such blatant stupidity and dishonesty becoming so rampant.
Mostly because of the massive mis-allocation of minds and means this mission of deceit is causing.
The lost potential, opportunities and advancement which otherwise would be realized is an unforgiveable crime against modern humanity.
Too bad it will only be prosecuted by historical memories sometime in the future.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  steve oregon
December 28, 2014 6:30 pm

The people who wrote this study, would never have contributed anything to society no matter what subject they studied.
So in a way, this study has safely kept them off the streets, and made their intelectual powers obvious for the rest of us to see. No harm was done, and noone was confused (except them).

rogerknights
December 27, 2014 12:10 pm

“Whether carbon emissions from soil rise or fall, the researchers’ model depicts an intricate soil-carbon system that contrasts starkly with existing models that portray soil as a simple carbon repository, Sulman said.”
IOW, the science wasn’t as settled as we were told.

December 27, 2014 12:11 pm
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 27, 2014 12:13 pm

OOP!
Try this.
javascript:playVideo(6,’WKyq-95dElg’)

Reply to  Gunga Din
December 27, 2014 12:15 pm

One more try.

Dawtgtomis
December 27, 2014 1:07 pm

Here in Hooterville the ‘monster plants’ are those aggressive, non-indigenous Asian Bush Honeysuckle, Locals claim it was introduced by a Christian Science college nearby about a century ago and it has proliferated over nearby counties, endangering the life cycles of indigenous flora. I understand other parts of the country also experience this problem.
Can someone link it to climate change so we can get help eliminating it?

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 27, 2014 1:36 pm

I think you’d have more success blaming it on Bush (GW, of course).

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 28, 2014 3:52 pm

LOL I can think of bush I’m more fond of.

Leon Brozyna
December 27, 2014 1:54 pm

/sarc/
We’re drowning in carbon pollution …
it’s everywhere
it’s everywhere
it’s in the ground
it’s in the air
it’s in the ocean
we must be worried
Bishop Gore tells us so
for when the ground and ocean exhale their carbon
running away will the warming be
yes, be worried
be very scared
for one New Year’s Day
instead of a fahrenheit high of 25
it’ll be a blistering hot 27
wondering am I
why scientists are no longer to be found
instead there are nothing but
high priests and clowns
[there’s a difference?]
and real folk listen to such pronouncements
with combination giggles and frowns.
/sarc/

old44
Reply to  Leon Brozyna
December 27, 2014 3:14 pm

You really don’t need a /sarc/ tag. When climate scientists like this are discussed most comments are sarcastic. Maybe a /notsarc/ tag is required.

Phlogiston
December 27, 2014 1:57 pm

This is a good example of the total epistemological collapse of modern “climate science”. Just as the children have forgotten what snow is, they have forgotten what logic is.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Phlogiston
December 27, 2014 2:53 pm

I have a dimmer view of the modern system which created the paper, subject of this thread. In light of the fact that all information which overturns and refutes the standard rote from the climate fearosphere is assailed by propagandists armed with thin and puerile logic, this paper seems to have been “directed”. In other words, it was ordered to have been produced, in order to fight against the growing awareness among the masses that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a boon to all life on earth.
This paper will give the propagandists a counter claim to the fact that CO2 is necessary for life, ridiculous as their claim may be. It’s just another skirmish in the battle between a comparatively small handful of elites with totalitarian bent and the rest of humanity.

Jimbo
Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 28, 2014 3:26 am

propagandists counter claim will not be based on current observations or paleo. Just another modelled result.
Phlogiston, here are some children pictured yesterday in the UK.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/12/27/1419676562603/23cec215-c84c-4b3e-8569-5ab48435f711-460×276.jpeg
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/27/travel-chaos-weather-snow-england-roads-airports-shut

Michael Hammer
December 27, 2014 3:08 pm

Hmmm; when one comes up with a hypothesis the correct course of action is to test it before shouting it out to the masses. You know, devise an experiment where the predicted outcome would support the hypothesis and then see if the predicted outcome actually occurs. Obviously that’s far too much trouble for these “researchers” spinning theories is easy but actually testing them is hard work. So maybe I can suggest 3 simple tests they could apply
1 They suggest the rapidity of plant growth is what triggers this effect. Well plants grow much more rapidly and strongly in the tropics compared to temperate latitudes so according to their hypothesis the soil carbon in the tropics should be much lower than the soil carbon in more temperature latitudes. Is it?
2 If I extrapolate their hypothesis, more virulent plant growth should equal less soil carbon and vice versa so that would mean soil carbon was highest in areas where the plant growth was slowest. So soil carbon should be highest in arid/cold/desert areas. Absurd extrapolation? Then are they postulating that soil carbon peaks at some level of plant growth and is lower each side of this peak? If so, what is the peak – clearly that’s an important thing to know.
3 Following on from point 2, the data I have seen suggests that plant growth during the cretaceous period (the dinosaurs) was far greater than today (and it was warmer) so according to their theory soil carbon should be much lower. Yet this was the period when soil carbon was so high it laid down all the fossil fuel reserves we rely on today! Dead plant material accumulated far faster than it could decay! How is that possible, again are they suggesting that the sign of the relationship reverses if one goes too far from the current conditions. So that would mean much more plant growth = more soil carbon, much less plant growth = less soil carbon but just around our current conditions the sign of the feedback reverses and more plant growth mysteriously = less soil carbon. Put that way the hypothesis seems rather extraordinary and as has been said extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof and a model with made up coefficients is hardly any sort of proof at all.
These are valid questions which are so basic any competent researcher should have thought of them. Are these people not thinking, so wrapped up in their narrow world that they are blind to the rest of the world or are they simply generating propaganda with a “science flavour”.

tty
Reply to  Michael Hammer
December 27, 2014 4:08 pm

1. Yes, as a rule there is rather little soil carbon in tropical rain forest. However it dependes mostly on the quality of the soil, there is much more soil carbon in SE Asia and New Guinea than in the Amazon.
2. Soil carbon is highest in cool, wet areas (peat!).
3. There wasn’t that much coal accumulated in the Cretaceous. A lot of oil, yes, but that accumulated in deep oxygen-free oceans, not in soils. Most coal accumulated during the Carboniferous, which was cool and wet (with large scale glaciation in the Southern Hemisphere).

Khwarizmi
Reply to  tty
December 28, 2014 1:03 am

A lot of oil, yes, but that accumulated in deep oxygen-free oceans, not in soils
============
1) There is always plenty of oxygen at depth:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cfc/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/a10_lab_review_oxygen_v2_1_resize.png
Oxygen on CLIVAR A10 section along 30°S in 2010 – NOAA
2) “In the geologic past, conditions have periodically recurred in which vast amounts of organic matter were preserved within the sediment of shallow, inland seas. Over time and with deep burial, these organic-rich source beds are literally pressure-cooked with the output being the production of large quantities of oil and natural gas.”
– U.S. Dept. of Energy (archive copy)
It seems that everyone who believes in the fossil fable has their own personal version of it.

tty
Reply to  tty
December 28, 2014 2:42 am

There is always oxygen at depth today, it wasn’t in the past (and there isn’t even today in e. g. the Black Sea).
Ever wondered why the deep ocean is so cold? It’s rather odd really since it is surrounded by warm water on top and hot rocks underneath. It is because, in the icehouse climate we are living in, the water in the deep sea is very cold, salty and well oxygenated since it is derived from stormy arctic seas.
In former warmer climates the heaviest available water was instead warm, briny and oxygen-poor waters originating at low latitudes, so the deep sea was usually oxygen-poor, and during some intervals many basins were completely oxygen-free. That was where the black Cretaceous shales, that much of our oil derives from, accumulated. In the US most oil is from relatively shallow marine basins. This is emphatically not true e. g. in Brazil, Nigeria or Angola where the source-rock was emplaced as the South Atlantic opened, or the Middle East where the source-rocks were deposited at the bottom of the now defunct Tethys Ocean. It isn’t even true in e. g., the Permian Basin of West Texas. Go and have a look at El Capitan in the Guadelupe mountains sometime. You are then actually standing on the deep sea-bottom looking up at one of the largest barrier reefs in the history of the Earth.
And, yes, oil is organic

John Robertson
Reply to  Michael Hammer
December 28, 2014 12:07 am

Exactly my thoughts too. This hypothesis of theirs could be easily tested in a laboratory under controlled conditions to see if adding more CO2 to the atmosphere of a variety of plant environments would change the soil composition and percentage of carbon present thereof. Instead they make a computer model that is not falsifiable and proclaim it as gospel. Richard Feinman would be laughing his head off at his lecture podium!
These model results look a lot like bad 50’s horror movie plots – The Blob, Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes, etc.
PS, there are many ‘experimental’ sites for this – called plant conservatories. Couldn’t they just have asked the conservators what they found out after years of higher CO2 concentration? We have a lovely one here in Vancouver, BC – The Bloedel Conservatory, its been running since the 1950s – must be some real data there!

old44
December 27, 2014 3:10 pm

Did I understand this correctly:
1. If plants live, they will increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and we are all doomed.
2. If plants die, they will rot and release carbon dioxide into the air and we are all doomed.
Whatever happens, we are buggered.

December 27, 2014 4:00 pm

That was one of the silliest things that I ever read.

December 27, 2014 5:04 pm

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
So now a “greening” of the Earth, leading possibly to higher food production as more areas become arable and plants get more plant food (that nasty CO2) is a bad thing. The climate alarmists are getting desperate, I tell ya.

TobiasN
December 27, 2014 6:24 pm

You mean, a greenhouse gas will make the Earth like a greenhouse and in greenhouses plants grow really well? …I am shocked.
What is the Green party to do? Suddenly announce they are for greenhouse gases?
No. that would not do. Clearly the Green party needs to announce that more green plants will destroy civilization as we know it. That they, the Green party, are against green plants (as they are against cows, meat, electricity and most humans),
because they want to – in some bizzarro Rousseauian way, go back to Nature.
They are so convincing. It’s incredible.
No seriously, their minds have passed the point of cognitive dissonance. You and I might have thought that would stop them but no, it was no hindrance, their have simply converted their thinking into metaphorical Möbius strips.
Not physically possible, but pure intellect, a new beginning. The great future of pure nonsense awaits.

December 27, 2014 6:26 pm

It helps if you read the first paragraph in the voice of the Russian ambassador from “Dr. Strangelove”.

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 27, 2014 6:48 pm

Oh good!
Now we can stop all those carbon credits for planting forests on top of villages after driving the people out… Clearly forest sequestration is a failed idea and is only setting up a soil crisis…
(I’d put a /sarc on it, but that’s one of the logical conclusions from their Magical Thinking Paper…)

sophocles
December 27, 2014 10:44 pm

Well, they’ve discovered `the answer lies in the soil.’ The plants should love it.
Come back T-Rex, all is forgiven!

December 28, 2014 2:56 am

At least there is no runaway of anything involved. Twice as much CO₂ in the soil and if all comes out yield at most 3 times the plants matter as we have now. Without roots, of course. </sarc>

tonybr
December 28, 2014 3:43 am

As Root Cause Analyses go, this is beyond stupid.

Stacey
December 28, 2014 3:53 am

Dear Anthony
Please could you or one of your colleagues do an article on Scarier Law setting out the Ten Commandments staring with
1 Thou shalt not question.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
December 28, 2014 4:17 am

Each cAGW solution to a basic dilemma creates at least three new ones. Who has caused the Amazonian high CO2 emissions*, explosive plant growth and poor soil? When? And how?
comment image/