Scientists tackle the carbon conundrum

Nov 16, 2011

U.S. scientists have developed a new, integrated, ten-year science plan to better understand the details of Earth's carbon cycle and people's role in it. Understanding the carbon cycle is central for mitigating climate change and developing a sustainable future. The plan builds on the first such plan, published in 1999, but identifies new research areas such as the role of humans as agents and managers of carbon cycling and climate change, the direct impact of greenhouse gases on ecosystems including changes to the diversity of plants and animals and ocean acidification, the need to address social concerns, and how best to communicate scientific results to the public and decision makers.

The first carbon science plan for the U.S., published in 1999, resulted in numerous breakthroughs for understanding the carbon cycle and how it is changing in response to human pressures. For instance, researchers discovered that the huge quantities of CO2 absorbed by the oceans are causing ocean acidification, which is harming sea life and affecting the food chain. Research also characterized the large uptake of carbon by plants and soils in the , and found that understanding land use and disturbance patterns is integral to understanding the .

The new plan is the culmination of a three-year effort with input from hundreds of scientists about the current needs of the research community. Carnegie Institution for Science's Anna Michalak, Duke University's Rob Jackson, Appalachian State University's Gregg Marland, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Christopher Sabine led the work on the 2011 A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan.*

"Although there has been a bonanza of new understanding about the carbon cycle over the last decade, many new questions have arisen," remarked Michalak of Carnegie's Department of . "A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan lays the groundwork for expanding beyond a primary focus on the 'natural' carbon flows between the atmosphere, oceans, and plant life, to fully integrate human impacts and the role of both intentional and inadvertent carbon management decisions."

The team developed four science elements to drive the research. The backbone of the research strategy is to strengthen the network of observations to better monitor and track carbon as it winds its way through the atmosphere, ecosystems, oceans and society, and to find out how this changes over time. Other elements include studies of the processes that control the flows and transformations of carbon, and developing numerical models to predict future behavior.

Another important aspect of the plan is its increased emphasis on communication and making research more accessible to policy makers and the general public. It is hoped that this will lead to rational and well-informed decisions on how best to manage the global , especially the human impacts on it.

In an era of tight budgets and with public questions about the value of science, this plan calls for an expanded role for careful, integrated, and clear science to inform and support human objectives for a sustainable environment.

Explore further: Mysterious source of ozone-depleting chemical baffles NASA

More information: *The report is published by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research supported by NASA, DOE, USDA, USGS, NOAA, NSF, and NIST. The authors are Anna Michalak, Robert B. Jackson, Gregg Marland, Christopher L. Sabine, and the Carbon Cycle Science Working Group.

Provided by Carnegie Institution

5 /5 (2 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Corralling the carbon cycle

Nov 13, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists may have overcome a major hurdle to calculating how much carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed and released by plants, vital information for understanding how the biosphere responds ...

If not in atmosphere, where does carbon go?

Nov 02, 2007

A prominent atmospheric scientist Monday (Oct. 29) called for more research into natural carbon “sinks,” which today absorb almost half of man-made carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere and which will play a large ...

Recommended for you

Severe drought is causing the western US to rise

2 hours ago

The severe drought gripping the western United States in recent years is changing the landscape well beyond localized effects of water restrictions and browning lawns. Scientists at Scripps Institution of ...

A NASA satellite double-take at Hurricane Lowell

2 hours ago

Lowell is now a large hurricane in the Eastern Pacific and NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites double-teamed it to provide infrared and radar data to scientists. Lowell strengthened into a hurricane during the ...

Arctic sea ice influenced force of the Gulf Stream

4 hours ago

The force of the Gulf Stream was significantly influenced by the sea ice situation in the Fram Strait in the past 30,000 years. Scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine ...

User comments : 26

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2011
Scientists tackle the carbon conundrum


Regretfully the worldwide entanglement of science, politics and economics started about four decades ago [1].

1. "Deep Roots of the Global Climate Scandal (1971-2011)"
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

It destroyed the credibility of scientists, politicians and economists and caused great and unnecessary social unrest.

http://chiefio.wo...et-mess/

http://judithcurr...climate/

www.theepochtimes...214.html

Regretfully, that is where we are today.

Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09

Nerdyguy
3.5 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
Don't know why these guys even bother.

They'll be attacked from within their own ranks and from without.

They'll be attacked by liberals for being too conservative in their approach.

They'll be attacked by conservatives for being too liberal.

They'll be attacked by both for claiming as fact anything the attacker doesn't particularly agree with.

This is a very sad state of affairs for science.
ED__269_
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2011
Don't know why these guys even bother.

They'll be attacked from within their own ranks and from without.

They'll be attacked by liberals for being too conservative in their approach.

They'll be attacked by conservatives for being too liberal.

They'll be attacked by both for claiming as fact anything the attacker doesn't particularly agree with.

This is a very sad state of affairs for science.


Rubbish, thats the worst reasoning ever. If you don't know why people bother, then perhaps you're undeserving of the name nerdyguy in favor of dopey?

The real problem is that carbon emissions isn't the full picture.

A thing called entropy was created to help explain more fully the phenomenon and exploitation of HEAT. (HELLO, global warming is heat, is changes in entropy) and the laws of thermodynamics are also expressed in terms of entropy.
ED__269_
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2011
if scientists can't see that the sun, earth, moon & all energy activity including manmade is our dynamic heat engine, then they're fooling themselves.

For MANAGEMENT to get real, the overview need to be real
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2011
Rubbish, thats the worst reasoning ever. If you don't know why people bother, then perhaps you're undeserving of the name nerdyguy in favor of dopey?


Hmmm...too funny that you would choose to insult me because you're too stupid to understand the meaning of my post.

A thing called entropy was created to help explain more fully the phenomenon and exploitation of HEAT. (HELLO, global warming is heat, is changes in entropy) and the laws of thermodynamics are also expressed in terms of entropy.


And do you have a point? I picture that you've opened up that high-school textbook and are pointing with one finger, typing with the finger on the other hand. lmao
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2011
This whole man made global warming hoax has been "validated" by a handful of computer simulations who's outcome was hacked up to prove the wishes of the highest bidders. If the governments were willing to pay for an outcome that proves that some other activity, that can be regulated and licensed for someones profit, causes warming, cooling or other potential milady, our universities will gladly provide a computer simulation to prove the need to regulate the activity providing the grant money is forthcoming.
Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2011
if scientists can't see that the sun, earth, moon & all energy activity including manmade is our dynamic heat engine, then they're fooling themselves.

For MANAGEMENT to get real, the overview need to be real


So, let's see if I've got this straight. Your genius-level contribution to the climate change debate is:

"For MANAGEMENT to get real, the overview need to be real"

Has the Nobel committee called yet?
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2011
This whole man made global warming hoax has been "validated" by a handful of computer simulations who's outcome was hacked up to prove the wishes of the highest bidders. If the governments were willing to pay for an outcome that proves that some other activity, that can be regulated and licensed for someones profit, causes warming, cooling or other potential milady, our universities will gladly provide a computer simulation to prove the need to regulate the activity providing the grant money is forthcoming.


I feel almost absurd asking this, but ummmmmm.....could you show any evidence of this "hacking up" for the highest bidder?

Sounds a bit like a Clancy novel. I want to know more.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2011
"They'll be attacked by liberals for being too conservative..." - NerdBoy

Whatcha flapping about NerdBoy? Liberals seldom attack scientists.

"could you show any evidence of this "hacking up" for the highest bidder?" - NerdBoy

Of course he can't. He is just engaging in public flatulence.

Lying makes him feel better. It reinforces his Conservatard world view.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2011
"This whole man made global warming hoax has been "validated" by a handful of computer simulations" - MR166

What? You mean that the world isn't observed to be warming?

How can that be when your own denialist Koch brothers paid for a study (BEST) that looked at global temperatures and found that the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, CRU, all have the science right, and the world really is warming, by .14'C over the last decade.

The Koch brothers wouldn't be lying to you would they?

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2011
"if scientists can't see that the sun, earth, moon & all energy activity including manmade is our dynamic heat engine" - Ed209

Direct observation of the sun shows that it's output has been in overall decline over the last 2 or 3 solar cycles while global temperatures have risen.

You poor, ignorant Tard you.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2011
"The real problem is that carbon emissions isn't the full picture." - Ed209

Climatologists don't claim that it is.

Why don't you go read the section of the last IPCC report that covers warming attributions, and get back to us.

You can read can't you?

antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
Ooh...a ten year plan...does this sound like: "Let's give ourselves another 10 years before we do anything" or not?

And then the study will end inconclusive and will be followed up by another ten year plan.

Don't get me wrong: studying the carbon cycle is a worthwhile effort. But only now getting to the point where they want to "increase emphasis on communication and making research more accessible to policy makers "...it's a little late for that. The policy makers that rae savvy already know what they need - and those that don't are too dumb to ever get the message.
ED__269_
1 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011
[Hmmm...too funny that you would choose to insult me because you're too stupid to understand the meaning of my post.


O really, now you are insulted?

it was a question, a chance for you to reflect on your words. Tell me then, what was the all important point of post?

And do you have a point? I picture that you've opened up that high-school textbook and are pointing with one finger, typing with the finger on the other hand.


Really. You just showed yet again, that you have nothing of value to add to this thread. Grow up a bit and then come back.

Do you even comprehend what a proposed entropy standard will reveal? If you do, then please illustrate your understanding to all those who don't get it, and thus contribute something worth while.

Otherwise, the comment I made earlier was totally justified, and you reacting so poorly illustrates your reasoning and maturity.
ED__269_
1 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011

Direct observation of the sun shows that it's output has been in overall decline over the last 2 or 3 solar cycles while global temperatures have risen.

You poor, ignorant Tard you.


O? So you think I mean only solar flares; and at the same time ignore the general mechanism proposed here which includes such things as flares by virtue of generic application of entropy, includes such things as carbon emission as increased entropy via state changes... and you call me the Tard.

Why do you even come to science forums when its obvious you are not even open minded? Scientists, the good well reasoned ones, hate being as blind as you've illustrated here
ED__269_
1 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2011


Hmmm...too funny that you would choose to insult me because you're too stupid to understand the meaning of my post.


Apparently, someone indirectly told me I have an attitude problem... so, in that light, I apologize.
Nerdyguy
not rated yet Nov 17, 2011


Hmmm...too funny that you would choose to insult me because you're too stupid to understand the meaning of my post.


Apparently, someone indirectly told me I have an attitude problem... so, in that light, I apologize.


Apology accepted, and I apologize for my insult as well.
rubberman
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2011
Ed...your constant use of the term "entropy", which as I understand it relating to thermodynamics is used as a term to describe the heat generated as a bi-product during changes of state of matter (ie: Co2 going from a gas to a carbon solid), may be a factor if considering an attempt at artificially increasing the carbon uptake of a natural system for sequestering it. But as far as understanding the carbon cycle itself, the most basic parts of the equation (total amount of carbon emitted vs. the amount absorbed),entropy is at best a sidebar notation that additional heat is contributed because of it. Climate change as a whole must take it into account, but it is difficult to measure entropy and therefore can't really be inserted into a climate model to "increase" accuracy.

@ AntPhys....BINGO!!! You are absolutely correct, your prize for being so observant is an all inclusive vacation to balmy Ellesmere Island on the North shore of Canada...BRING YOUR SWIM TRUNKS, the waters nice!
ED__269_
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
... But as far as understanding the carbon cycle itself, the most basic parts of the equation (total amount of carbon emitted vs. the amount absorbed),entropy is at best a sidebar notation that additional heat is contributed because of it.


Rubberman; You've completely misrepresented the ideal of modelling. And entropy of itself never adds heat independently of the system it's modelling().

The value of entropy lies in the fact that it can be used to model more than state changes, it is versatile and dynamic capable of even modelling E=MC2 and shifts in mass about the OZONE region into outer space. And, it can even be extended to model how the latent heat capacity of the oceans have changed.

Since all these things and more can be describe by the change in entropy, It is a tool that when applied correctly, is capable of giving a great - if not the best model by which all contributing GW factors can be represented.
ED__269_
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
I'll write a 10 minute paper to show you.

1st postulate... a system under equilibrium has no change in entropy.

2nd postulate... entropy changes to a system in equilibrium will shift its balance point.

3rd postulate... an equilibrium is the lowest entropy state of the system. Or, an equilibrium system is naturally motivated to its lowest state.

These postulates predict that if the moon is getting further from the earth, then there IS an ENTR?OP?Y ?CHANGE.

Fact, the moon is getting farer away from the earth... since it is a mass force balance... mass has changed.
rubberman
2.5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2011
Hi Ed. Carbon cycle...focus.Maybe re-read the article. Although it indirectly addresses global climate change by remarking that understanding the carbon cycle is central to understanding climate change, the analysis is of the carbon cycle itself, not all of the variables of climate change.Entropy does not produce or absorb carbon and therefore is not worth including in a model that simulates carbon uptake vs. carbon emmission....

I'm not even going near your earth moon mass change and how that effects the carbon cycle.
ED__269_
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2011
Hi Rubberman.

The paper seems to ask me whether the general population have the right know what really going on.

I gave everyone a method by which they can access the truth. Something you seem to either deliberately or ignorantly miss (I know not which).

FACT "Entropy can be used to track a carbon cycle." More than that, entropy guided by these 3 postulates posted here can predict what conditions will be like during the extreme environmental conditions.(the 3rd postulate has a local and long range order; i.e. CO2 20 km above the sea can't be absorbed into the oceans)

But the bigger issue is the political motivations. There is a GREAT BIG FAT PHYSICAL FACT that is deliberately hidden not just by me, but by the prevailing political environment.

But it is not completely hidden, I have given the guide by which the truth is undeniably revealed. Only individuals with enough understanding of the physics will be able to access the truth of it. (Others rely more on faith an instinct)
ED__269_
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2011
I totally wish mankind were mature enough to be collective. But the fact is, we're not.

So, until mankind starts to take its long term well being as a priority, shit is going to happen and continue to happen.
ED__269_
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2011
I totally wish mankind were mature enough to be collective. But the fact is, we're not...


Actually, I should qualify this better.

The general population, by on large, are far more capable than the political leadership gives them credit & capacity for.

The real immaturity isn't in the population, but in the decisions to keep & maintain peoples ignorance. The leadership! the prevailing policy is the reason why there isn't any development toward solutions in GW.

People know ultimately that we die of old age... yet continue to live anyway... that right there is the true testament to resilience, and to our capacity to accept the facts.

I am capable of using the entropy postulates to write a negative contribution to the sum of the total entropy...

i.e. use of solar cells to power a liquid nitrogen extractor lowers the sum of entropy.

Setting up science systems that trace energy transformations in terms of the entropy changes enables science to find solutions.
ED__269_
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2011
Obviously, thats only one solution, and solutions may be hard to invent...

But I'm sure, by on large, that most people would agree that we should know what the score is, and be given the choice to make a start toward developments.

In the long run, that is by far better for national, and international security & by far better than the current bury your head in the sand policy & NO CHOICE.

ED__269_
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2011
And for general interests, to help the general public understand the entropy score of the above example, it is the highest scoring example I can think of...

there is a stored entropy score in the transformation of suns energy... this goes towards an increase in mass potential... which ultimately goes to the momentum (increases the system capacity) -- judgement to GW --good effect!

there is a state entropy change from a gas into a solid -- judgement to GW -- good effect

There is a temperature sink hole due to the temperature of liquid nitrogen-- judgement to GW -- good effect.