Credit: Robert Spencer/Florida State
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — As the Earth warms and glaciers all over the world begin to melt, researchers and public policy experts have focused largely on how all of that extra water will contribute to sea level rise.
But another impact lurking in that inevitable scenario is carbon.
More specifically, what happens to all of the organic carbon found in those glaciers when they melt?
That’s the focus of a new paper by a research team that includes Florida State University assistant professor Robert Spencer. The study, published in Nature Geoscience, is the first global estimate by scientists at what happens when major ice sheets break down.
“This is the first attempt to figure out how much organic carbon is in glaciers and how much will be released when they melt,” Spencer said. “It could change the whole food web. We do not know how different ecological systems will react to a new influx of carbon.”
Glaciers and ice sheets contain about 70 percent of the Earth’s freshwater and ongoing melting is a major contributor to sea level rise. But, glaciers also store organic carbon derived from both primary production on the glaciers and deposition of materials such as soot or other fossil fuel combustion byproducts.
Spencer, along with colleagues from Alaska and Switzerland, studied measurements from ice sheets in mountain glaciers globally, the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet to measure the total amount of organic carbon stored in the global ice reservoir.
It’s a lot.
Specifically, as glaciers melt, the amount of organic carbon exported in glacier outflow will increase 50 percent over the next 35 years. To put that in context, that’s about the amount of organic carbon in half of the Mississippi River being added each year to the ocean from melting glaciers.
“This research makes it clear that glaciers represent a substantial reservoir of organic carbon,” said Eran Hood, the lead author on the paper and a scientist with the University of Alaska Southeast. “As a result, the loss of glacier mass worldwide, along with the corresponding release of carbon, will affect high-latitude marine ecosystems, particularly those surrounding the major ice sheets that now receive fairly limited land-to-ocean fluxes of organic carbon.”
Spencer said he and his colleagues are continuing on this line of research and will do additional studies to try to determine exactly what the impact will be when that carbon is released into existing bodies of water.
“The thing people have to think about is what this means for the Earth,” Spencer said. “We know we’re losing glaciers, but what does that mean for marine life, fisheries, things downstream that we care about? There’s a whole host of issues besides the water issue.”
###
[UPDATE by Willis Eschenbach] Thanks for pointing out this nonsense, Anthony. I can’t express how much I despise this kind of “half the Mississippi” alarmism. Let’s put this all into some kind of context.
The Mississippi contributes only about 1.5% of the total global river discharge. So their “half the Mississippi”, which sounds so alarming, is actually less than 1% of the total organic carbon flowing every year into the world oceans. The idea that this is worth worrying about is a sick joke.
My regards to all, and don’t believe everything you read,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We know now that CO2 is pollution, so maybe we can consider organic carbon pollution,too.
Since the solution to pollution is dilution, we can only start to fret if the ratio of organic carbon to H2O is higher in glacier ice than it is in river water.
We have been assured that there’s enough water in the glaciers to drown New York, so either there’s nothing to worry about on the carbon front or the Mississippi is one dirty mother.
mebbe
If I remember correctly, a few years back at the height of the bottled water fad some company was selling bottled glacier water promising it was 100% pure. Think their customers have grounds for a lawsuit??
“Since the solution to pollution is dilution” — you need to take up poetry also.
Eugene WR Gallun
According to the write up about this study, Glaciers melting all over the world is an “inevitable scenario.” What evidence do they have for that? Do they realize that if their glacier-melting scenario is “inevitable,” then there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. And if that’s the case, the only choice we have is to adapt to it when it happens. Of course, they don’t tell us “when” it’s going to happen, so I’m not going to worry about it until I can actually notice the warming, see a rise in the oceans, and observe negative effects from either. Until then, there is nothing I can do about it. I can’t adapt to something that hasn’t happened yet. And I certainly can’t prevent something that is “inevitable.”
Since Carbon is so bad we should ban it and remove it from the environment. It should be illegal to possess, buy, or sell Carbon or anything made of Carbon. We should demand a Carbon free society. Well then other elements should be banned as well. Oxygen is bad because it turns Carbon into a greenhouse gas. H2O is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect so along with Oxygen, Hydrogen and anything with Hydrogen should be banned as well Nitrous Oxide is another greenhouse gas so Nitrogen should be banned as well..
Start with banning bread.
Almost every culture eats bread. When fermented with yeast nutrient, 1lb (453.59 g) of sugar converts to 0.5 lb of Ethyl Alcohol (C2H5OH) & 0.5lb of CO2. If the average large classic farmhouse loaf uses 23.95g of sugars (some natural within flour and milk), then 453.59 g of sugar produces 18.9 loaves which produce 0.5 lb of CO2. If there are 12M large loaves sold each day in the UK (source: UK Flour Advisory Service), then 140.977 tonnes of man-made CO2 is ‘emitted’ each day – or 51,465 tonnes of CO2 per annum. Based on this, and allowing for just 80% of the world’s current population (7.17B) as bread consumers with the average person consuming 62.5 loaves per annum, results in 85.571 tonnes of CO2 per annum.
Can I get my grant money now?
What will we eat? Cake?
I read somewhere that O2 is deadly to MOST species on Earth.
I’ve added the following update to the head post:
What value would be worth worrying about?
Bill 2 January 19, 2015 at 9:25 pm says
Good question, Bill. I generally divide effects into first, second, and third order. First order effects change the phenomenon in question by 10% or more. They are definitely worth worrying about.
Second order effects change the phenomenon by between 1% and 10%. They may be worth worrying about.
Third order effects change the phenomenon by less than 1%, and anyone who thinks that’s worth worrying about needs to reconsider.
Regards,
w.
Thanks for the clarification. Following this, if the average global temperature rose by 25C, then it may or may not be worth worrying about.
Thanks, Bill. The global temperature is an oddity in that regard, because it is extraordinarily stable, with a variation of under ± 0.5% over the last 10,000 years … which goes to show that my rule of thumb is only that, a rule of thumb.
However, remember that fresh water is about a millionth of the water on the planet, and there are many, many more sources of oceanic DOC than the rivers. As a result, the change in oceanic DOC from the glacier melt is guaranteed to be trivial.
w.
Isn’t the definition of an organic molecule one that contains carbon. Organic molecules are found all over the galaxy. Those molecules are not the result of anything man made.
Organic carbon is considered reduced carbon, i.e. still has electrons to donate as an energy source. CO2 is fully reduced and considered inorganic. CO is also considered non-organic.
Arrggh… CO2 is fully oxidized. Not reduced.
CH4 is organic carbon, with the ability to donate 4 pairs of electrons as it oxidized to CO2.
I’m reading and posting too fast without good QC. Better stop for the night.
There is the historical usage related to “life force” (vis vitalis). Thus, there was a notion that organic molecules are generated by living organisms. The distinction is arbitrary in many ways. I have no idea if something like this is part of the glacier study.
Now we have this notion expressed as ‘a company that grows organically’ in contrast to one that grows by acquiring others. There are organic light emitting diodes. I once read a statement by someone confused about how a television could be organic in the same sense as organic gardening.
The last time this happened it hustled in the Holocene era that we all enjoy today. I guess I don’t understand the problem this alarmism is supposed to suggest.
Yet another source of valuable plant food. ! 🙂
maybe 700ppm is on the cards at some future date 🙂 🙂
How much carbon falls into the earths atmosphere from extraterrestrial sources each year?
My guestimate: the Earth gets about 1e6 kg/a more carbon yearly.
See more here
Idiots.
Somewhere along the line, the melt water carrying all this shock horror organic carbon will reach forest, grasslands, crop lands. It becomes a food source for micro-organisms, helps improve soil stability by micro-organisms binding soil particles together into aggregates or ‘peds’, facilitating root growth etc.
http://www.soilquality.org.au/factsheets/organic-carbon
Some grasses will grow in raw coal-mining waste. Black powdery stuff stinking of sulfur. I know. I have done it.
Some larger plants will do the same, eg northen colonising birch. I have also observed cannabis plants coming up in colliery waste in NE UK. It wasn’t the hippies – it was old canary seed germinating.
“Some grasses will grow in raw coal-mining waste.”
Indeed, but they don’t get any nutrition from it, except some minerals, and most certainly not from the coal. The coal comes from the CO2 in the air.
Some coals are very high in humic acids (humates) and thus make an excellent soil amendment to improve soil structure and nutrient availability. I have some in liquid form; the humates were extracted from Leonardite with lactic acid (whey from cheesemaking). It’s a bit more than just CO2 from the air.
Another half truth.
It depends on time scale… short term – carbon released as decaying matter is exposed – a carbon source.
On the longer term, decades: A Laurentian Rain Forest is what you get… a huge carbon sink, that far outweighs the initial sink.
errata: not initial sink.. an initial source… arrgghhh!!
Ah Ha! 😉
FSU. Need I say more?
So does this paper also follow it’s own logic and attribute the rising CO2 levels this past 150 years to melting glaciers and a naturally warming planet? No? What a surprise!
Based on a population of 7 Billion, and a lifespan of 80 years, 1.7 million people die every week world wide. That’s about one Vienna per week. One Vienna! That’s almost half a Montreal! HALF! We have to consider the downstream effects of this! Where are we going to bury 1/2 a Montreal per week? PER WEEK!
Does anyone know the conversion factor between Montreals and Mississippis? I keep on dividing by the ATIM (Amount That It Matters) and getting infinity.
2.54 in metric. I don’t know what it is in BTU’s.
Multiply Mississippis by 0.0006724 Olympic Swimming Pools to get Montreals in Kitten Sneeezes/Oil Tanker. (Gosh! I thought everyone knew that.)
That right there is the perfect basis for a Josh cartoon.
Not really, Paul. You still have to multiply Kitten Sneezes/Oil Tanker by log(square root of Pie) to get Mississippis in Montreals.
The warmistas would laugh themselves silly if Josh left out log(square root of Pie), although I think Josh is savvy enough about Catastrophic Climate Units to not make such an elementary error.
Another big problem with this – not all glaciers are melting. And are they talking about carbon, or CO2?
I’m scared! I’m really scared. Everything is escalating so fast!!!!!!
Right now it is all about CO2 but tomorrow it will be CO3 and then CO4! And God help us!!! What about CO5!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!! It just keeps getting worse and worse!!!!!!!!!! WHAT IF WE GET TO CO6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eugene WR Gallun
We have already reached COP20 & next one is COP21 !
I get my kicks from CO6.
(sorry)
I’d just like to point out that the “Mississippi” is a perfectly valid measurement unit. As a watchmaker, I use them quite often when roughly counting time intervals in seconds:
One Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi…………
It’s roughly equivalent to the European (British) “one thousand”:
One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three…..
Having just checked it seems that this paper has made a mathematical error and that the “Glacial carbon outflow” is, in fact, approximately two Mississippi’s not 1/2 a [Mississippi]. Perhaps they got [something] upside-down again?
[Actually, counting Mississippi’s halves is twice as slow as one Mississippi:
One Mississippi, one-half Mississippi, two Mississippi, one-half Mississippi, three Mississippi, … Never mind. The mod’s are still trying to convert Davidmhoffer’s Vienna’s, Venice’s, Mississippi’s and Gandhi’s into equivalent Montreal units. Which must be some combination halfway between a metric-English-tonne in Euro’s and half-French-troy-ounces in pound sterling. .mod]
Joe, it’s taken me at least eight hippopotamuses to reply to your post.
I read the first sentence “As the Earth warms and glaciers all over the world begin to melt…” and stopped at that point. Glaciers beginning to melt? How stupid do these fools think we are?
According to popular media, almost all glaciers are showing signs of retreat. So if you want to educate, you really need to present data which either proves this wrong or proves it not scary.
Now, I wouldn’t even try, because the whole picture is so well hidden behind scare stories.
You just have to remind them that glaciers have been ‘retreating’ since the start of the Holocene interglacial period 11,700 years ago. It’s an all natural cycle that they should fervently hope and pray does not end soon!
As long as it’s “organic” it must be good for you. More, please…!
The whole article is simply nonsense: the “organic” carbon is partly inorganic, as most sooth (black carbon) is and/or is real organic: plant rests which were covered in early times when the glaciers (re)started to grow and from algae’s near the surface. Sooth isn’t oxidized back to CO2, it remains sooth until eternity, except if captured by some fire (volcano…). One can find sooth from household fires of many thousands of years ago.
Plant debris can decay to CO2 with the help of bacteria and molds, but that is part of the whole organic CO2 cycle, which for the moment is negative: there is more plant growth (especially in dry areas) than plant decay, as the oxygen balance shows. Thus more CO2 is taken away by plants than is used by the rest of the biosphere (bacteria, molds, insects, animals). That includes the relative small quantities of CO2 released by decaying organics from melting glaciers…
So, this sooth-sayer sayeth, the Tallahassee soothsayers speak with forked carbon?
How smooth is soot? Caramel is sweet, that is halfway between sugar and soot…
Thanks for the update… English with its enormous differences between spelling and pronouncement…
Apparently these jokers include soot in ”organic carbon”. Now soot is almost pure elemental carbon (C2) which at environmental temperatures is one of the most stable and inert substances known. It has to be heated to ignition in order to oxidize to CO2. Not only do coal deposits last for hundreds of million years unchanged in the ground, but the vastly more fragile fusain (soot and charcoal from forest fires) also stays unchanged for hundreds of million years. In archaeological contexts, organics rot away, bones weather and are leached away by water, only stone tools and soot from hearths survive indefinitely.
Once soot from glaciers makes it into the ocean it will sink to the bottom and be included into sediments where it will remain indefinitely, without having any effect whatsoever on the ecosystems or the coal cycle (no, it won’t be digested by any organisms, since it has zero nutritional value, like the fusain I mentioned above).
Perusing Villager’s comments, it now seems on-message to agree that most of the world’s glaciers are retreeting, but that its’s no big deal (recovery from the from the LIA and all that)
The psychology behind the summary from Tallahassee is probably telling. This might have started out as a perfectly reasonable project to assay carbon in the world’s glaciers. Reasonable, but very dull, and unlikely to be widely noticed. Adding sideways references to loss of glacial mass and speculating on ‘downstream’ consequences, however trivial, will get a whole shedload of routine citations, irrespective of the merit of the work itself. It is all getting very silly.
I will not respond to all nonsense here, but one exeption I will make:
No NC Brian (January 19, 2015 at 4:51 pm):
“temperature rises, glaciers melt, CO2 goes up in that order. BIG SUPPRISE. :)”
this is not correct:
CO2 goes up, temperature rises, glaciers melt seems to me the right order of things;
Please can you respond to my “nonsense” above?
How many Hiroshimas are there in a Half a Mississippi?
Aren’t Hiroshimas insoluble in water?