As temperatures rise, soil will relinquish less carbon to the atmosphere than predicted

As temperatures rise, soil will relinquish less carbon to the atmosphere than predicted
The soil above the Arctic Circle near Barrow, Alaska contains a tremendous amount of carbon. New research may help scientists better predict how much of this carbon will be released as the climate warms.

Here's another reason to pay close attention to microbes: Current climate models probably overestimate the amount of carbon that will be released from soil into the atmosphere as global temperatures rise, according to research from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).

The findings are from a new computer model that explores the feedbacks between soil carbon and . It's the first such model to include several physiologically realistic representations of how soil microbes break down organic matter, a process that annually unleashes about ten times as much carbon into the atmosphere as fossil fuel emissions. In contrast, today's models include a simplistic representation of microbial behavior.

The research is published Nov. 17 on the website of the journal Nature Climate Change.

Based on their results, the Berkeley Lab scientists recommend that future Earth system models include a more nuanced and dynamic depiction of how soil microbes go about the business of degrading organic matter and freeing up carbon.

This approach could help scientists more accurately predict what will happen to soil carbon as Earth's climate changes. These predictions are especially important in vulnerable regions like the Arctic, which is expected to warm considerably this century, and which holds a vast amount of carbon in the tundra.

"We know that microbes are the agents of change when it comes to decomposing organic matter. But the question is: How important is it to explicitly quantify complex microbial interactions in ?" says Jinyun Tang, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division who conducted the research with fellow Berkeley Lab scientist William Riley.

As temperatures rise, soil will relinquish less carbon to the atmosphere than predicted
The complex and dynamic livelihood of soil microbes is captured in this schematic. For the first time, these processes are represented in a computer model that predicts the fate of soil carbon as temperatures rise. Credit: Berkeley Lab

"We found that it makes a big difference," Tang says. "We showed that warming temperatures would return less soil carbon to the atmosphere than current models predict."

Terrestrial ecosystems, such as the Arctic tundra and Amazon rainforest, contain a huge amount of carbon in organic matter such as decaying plant material. Thanks to soil microbes that break down organic matter, these ecosystems also contribute a huge amount of carbon to the atmosphere.

Because soil is such a major player in the carbon cycle, even a small change in the amount of carbon it releases can have a big affect on atmospheric carbon concentrations. This dynamic implies that climate models should represent soil-carbon processes as accurately as possible.

But here's the problem: Numerous empirical experiments have shown that the ways in which decompose organic matter, and respond to changes in temperature, vary over time and from place to place. This variability is not captured in today's ecosystem models, however. Microbes are depicted statically. They respond instantaneously when they're perturbed, and then revert back as if nothing happened.

To better portray the variability of the microbial world, Tang and Riley developed a numerical model that quantifies the costs incurred by microbes to respire, grow, and consume energy.

Their model accounts for internal physiology, such as the production of enzymes that help microbes break down organic matter. It includes external processes, such as the competition for these enzymes once they're outside the microbe. Some enzymes adsorb onto mineral surfaces, which means they are not available to chew through . The model also includes competition between different microbial populations.

Together, these interactions-from enzymes to minerals to populations­-represent microbial networks as ever-changing systems, much like what's observed in experiments.

The result? When the model was subjected to a 4 degrees Celsius change, it predicted more variable but weaker and climate feedbacks than current approaches.

"There's less flux to the atmosphere in response to warming," says Riley. "Our representation is more complex, which has benefits in that it's likely more accurate. But it also has costs, in that the parameters used in the model need to be further studied and quantified."

Tang and Riley recommend more research be conducted on these microbial and mineral interactions. They also recommend that these features ultimately be included in next-generation Earth system models, such as the Department of Energy's Accelerated Climate Modeling for Energy, or ACME.


Explore further

Researchers create more accurate model for greenhouse gases from peatlands

More information: A paper describing this research, entitled "Weaker soil carbon-climate feedbacks resulting from microbial and abiotic interactions," is published in Nature Climate Change's website on November 17, 2014: www.nature.com/nclimate/journa … ll/nclimate2438.html
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Citation: As temperatures rise, soil will relinquish less carbon to the atmosphere than predicted (2014, November 17) retrieved 23 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-11-temperatures-soil-relinquish-carbon-atmosphere.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 17, 2014
Current climate models probably overestimate the amount of carbon that will be released from soil into the atmosphere as global temperatures rise
But... but... "The science is settled!"

LOL.


Nov 17, 2014
But... but... "The science is settled!"
LOL.
@ubavonstupid
what part of that study did you have problems with?
just because you cannot comprehend the science doesn't mean it isn't real

unfortunately, i could only read the abstract
but even in the abstract it spells out enough to show you that you are TROLLING

have you found any equivalent studies to refute the ones i've posted in other threads yet?
let me know when you do

uba=TROLL

Nov 17, 2014
As nail after nail is hammered into the AGW Cult's Coffin of LIES, one wonders how many more do they need before they lay their lies to rest.

Nov 17, 2014
LOL. Cap'n Stumbles chatterbot posted some gibberish I can't see anymore (thanks Phys.org, for the ignore button!), probably filled with a bunch of links it stupidly, repeatedly posts expecting this is somehow meaningful. Sadly, Cap'n Stumbles hasn't a clue what any of those links are even about!

But I suppose it would be too much to expect a chatterbot to exhibit comprehension.


Nov 17, 2014
As nail after nail is hammered into the AGW Cult's Coffin of LIES, one wonders how many more do they need before they lay their lies to rest.
@AntiG
no science, TROLLING
reported

chatterbot posted some gibberish
@ubavonliar
leave it to the TROLL to post inflammatory stupidity and ignore the science
reported

IF there is a study, or equivalent empirical evidence that proves them correct, they would post is here

especially Uba in her need for justification of her stance

however, there has been NONE
not ONE link refuting the science and studies that i posted

I will even include more links: IF they have equivalent refute, they should consider not being TROLLS and post it

http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
a good article that you cannot even refute: http://www.epa.go...dity.pdf

Nov 17, 2014
LOL. Cap'n Stumbles chatterbot posted some gibberish I can't see anymore (thanks Phys.org, for the ignore button!), probably filled with a bunch of links it stupidly, repeatedly posts expecting this is somehow meaningful. Sadly, Cap'n Stumbles hasn't a clue what any of those links are even about!

But I suppose it would be too much to expect a chatterbot to exhibit comprehension.

Would someone kindly inform me if the Cap'n Stumbles minder actually takes over the account and is ready to discuss the content of the links it stupidly and repeatedly posts, please?

After all, aren't we here to discuss science?


Nov 17, 2014
I am upset! The quality of trolling on this site is terrible!

But... but... "The science is settled!"
LOL.


Wow, burned those scientists ... except scientists don't take anything as completely settled, not even basic physics.

As nail after nail is hammered into the AGW Cult's Coffin of LIES...


Let's call scientific conclusions a cult, ... because this denier doesn't like the conclusion.

probably filled with a bunch of links it stupidly, repeatedly posts expecting this is somehow meaningful...


Making fun of science links ... a viewpoint so inane it is not clear who it was written for.

If an honest well-informed skeptic posted insightful contrarian logic worthit would be wonderful. Or even if one of these troll posted something that looked legitimate it might be entertaining.

Nov 17, 2014
If an honest well-informed skeptic posted insightful contrarian logic worthit would be wonderful. Or even if one of these troll posted something that looked legitimate it might be entertaining.
As demonstrated in your own post, AGWite trolls appear incapable of discussing the science. Social bullying tactics are all they apparently have.

In the meantime, here is some real science:

Temperatures refuse to climb:

http://woodfortre....8/trend

Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:

http://www.telegr...sts.html


Nov 17, 2014
Helpful hints for science site trolls who care about the quality of their trolling:

1) If you want to appear as a real skeptic, don't disrespect working scientists all over the world. This blanket tactic is how biased people avoid addressing actual evidence. You don't want to look blatantly biased.

2) Instead of spinning theories about the motives of scientists you have never met, produce valid seeming reasons why experiments are systematically misunderstood.

This requires you to have real insight, but if you are going to shoot down science, having some real insight is a perquisite. Otherwise you might as well go back to trolling Youtube videos.

3) Stop drawing attention to your biases by arguing. Address questions and comments from those who disagree with you directly and politely. It will make you look honest.

4) Stop childishly insulting articles. Nobody credible needs to behave like that. This completely gives the trolling game away.

Nov 17, 2014
As demonstrated in your own post, AGWite trolls appear incapable of discussing the science. Social bullying tactics are all they apparently have.


Did I say anything about AGW? No. Did I bully anyone? No.

I pointed out some irrational comments were irrational. That wouldn't offend anyone who has a rational agenda, regardless of their beliefs about climate change or anything else.

---

I am sure you are aware that 1998 was a an El Nino year so a dip afterward was expected and your plot only shows 10 years which would not be enough to demonstrate any kind of climate change (warming or cooling). The long term trend is of warming, as you know, because your limited plot happens to show several of the record warmest years in a century.

If you are going to deceptively post cherry picked facts you are not a real skeptic. A real skeptic doesn't post discredited arguments.

Nov 17, 2014
Helpful hints for science site trolls who care about the quality of their trolling:
And again, nevermark provides another post, devoid of science. Why am I not surprised?


Nov 17, 2014
Did I say anything about AGW?
Of course not, you're apparently incapable.

Did I bully anyone?
Obviously, yes.

your plot only shows 10 years
Are you a blind, or just unable to read a graph? That's 18.2 years of zero warming.

A real skeptic doesn't post discredited arguments.
So now empirical data is somehow "discredited?" LOL.


Nov 17, 2014
Are you a blind, or just unable to read a graph? That's 18.2 years of zero warming.


Apparently unable to read. You are right, 18.2 years.

However, your plot still starts with the last major El Nino year, clips away the long term trend that clearly shows up on longer plots, and most important, actually includes several record gobal heat records which imply exactly the opposite conclusion

In other words, because of the records in those 18.2 years, the average global temperature is clearly up, way up.

If there is any reason to be skeptic that graph is not it.

But that is old news now. The first nine months of 2014 are tied with 1998 and by the end of the year will either be a new heat record or a close second. So the prediction that average temperatures are falling back to a recent mean has already proven wildly incorrect.

Nov 17, 2014
The sea ice graph fails to tell the goobers the increase is from calving glaciers, being pushed, carried out to sea by the rushing water under them.

As for no temperature changes in 18 years, see this:
http://www.climat...globally

Nov 17, 2014
Helpful hints for science site trolls who care about the quality of their trolling:
And again, nevermark provides another post, devoid of science. Why am I not surprised?


Thanks for taking my sense of humor about the complete disregard for science in many science comments so seriously.

Nov 17, 2014
As temperatures rise


Temperatures have risen before, temperatures will rise again. It is the way of the climate, to change.

Nov 18, 2014
As demonstrated in your own post, AGWite trolls appear incapable of discussing the science. Social bullying tactics are all they apparently have
@UBAstupid
and as demonstrated by your comments, we see someone who
1- cannot refute the science, so resorts to TROLLING (reported, btw)
2- is incapable of discussing the SCIENCE, especially when it refutes their position, so ignores the posters
3- simply posts inane stupidity instead of reading or refuting the links to scientific studies that are posted
Why should anyone even TRY to discuss anything with Uba when her tactic is to simply ignore you when you prove her wrong and stupid? and then she simply says that anyone showing her to be wrong, stupid or refutes her argument is considered "Social bullying tactics"

what is even relevant about their posts?
they offer NO science or even intelligent comment to the threads
The ignore button should be taken out and the MODS should just get rid of the TROLLS

Nov 18, 2014
However, your plot still starts with the last major El Nino year, clips away the long term trend that clearly shows up on longer plots, and most important, actually includes several record gobal heat records which imply exactly the opposite conclusion
@nevermark
Uba has been through all this before, with myself and with many others, including Runrig, a former meteorologist

she also has ignored the fact that "trends" as used in climate science are normally 30 years, and we've had many arguments over that term alone and her cherrypicking woodfortree's graphs for the sake of her faith (which is what it is when you ignore the science, right?)

this is how uba see's climate temps... vs the realist perspective that scientists and you have

http://www.skepti...php?g=47

don't let her lure you into stupid arguments
stick to the science
use studies.. . she hates that (see above)
that is why she has me on ignore
because she cannot refute the studies


Nov 18, 2014
http://woodfortre....8/trend
@nevermark
notice she only shows you what SHE wants you to see... she IGNORES all the rest of the data because ti doesn't fit with her world view

also, she ignores the heating of the oceans and more, as well as mixes up sea terminology, mixing volume with area
and if you say anything against it, she will say
So now empirical data is somehow "discredited?"
failing to realize that it is the argument and cherry-picking that is discredited, not the data (the subtle twist of the denier argument)

there are people trying to undermine science as proven in this study: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

uba is likely on a payroll to do just that

use all the links to studies you can
uba cannot argue with the studies... only the stupid cherry-picked argument
don't get drawn in

i am just going to report her for trolling

Nov 18, 2014
@Stumpy,
Thanks for the background. It is sad that people waste their time and precious short lives unable to overcome misperceptions that are well know and easily pointed out to them.

Nov 18, 2014
@Stumpy,
Thanks for the background
@nevermark
you are Welcome
you can peruse the older climate articles here on PO and see a lot of her same arguments with others... you will see a lot of the same stuff re-posted, verbatim almost

there is a lot of info saying that some people just cannot actually see the science. Strangely enough, they may not see it based upon so many things, from religion to politics (or, like the study above, for pay)
here are some interesting links to show denier issues:
http://arstechnic...nformed/
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
here is a new one i just read... interesting, too
http://sgo.sagepu...full.pdf
i think that there are a few issues with the last one, personally
it is multi-pronged and not just a one sided issue


Nov 18, 2014
However, your plot still starts with the last major El Nino year,
Actually, it begins 1.3 years prior.

clips away the long term trend that clearly shows up on longer plots,
Which only serves to show it warmed BEFORE the last 18.2 years. Who's arguing against that?

and most important, actually includes several record global heat records which imply exactly the opposite conclusion
Which global heat records? Maybe you don't think the world has ever been a lot warmer?

If there is any reason to be skeptic that graph is not it.
It is every reason to be a skeptic, as it was not predicted by the "science."

The first nine months of 2014 are tied with 1998 and by the end of the year will either be a new heat record or a close second.
Did you even LOOK at the graph?


Nov 18, 2014
The sea ice graph fails to tell the goobers the increase is from calving glaciers, being pushed, carried out to sea by the rushing water under them.

As for no temperature changes in 18 years, see this:
http://www.climat...globally
Hmm...This looks kinda' warm:

http://en.wikiped..._Maximum

...Brrr-r-rr-r. That made me want to put on some warm jammies and snuggle by the fire, as by comparison, we're deep within an iceage!


Nov 18, 2014
Helpful hints for science site trolls who care about the quality of their trolling:
And again, nevermark provides another post, devoid of science. Why am I not surprised?


Thanks for taking my sense of humor about the complete disregard for science in many science comments so seriously.
And still no science.

Let's talk definitions:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://woodfortre....8/trend


Nov 18, 2014
@Stumpy,
Thanks for the background. It is sad that people waste their time and precious short lives unable to overcome misperceptions that are well know and easily pointed out to them.
Indeed it is. Such as pretending warming continues, when it clearly is not:

http://woodfortre....8/trend

Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their claims (rhetorical)? I'll tell you why. That's because the only way to support a lie, is with more lies!


Nov 18, 2014
@Ubavontuba,

You are not even trying to be an honest skeptic.

The high temperature years in your clipped 18.2 record continued raising global average temperature. 2014 is hot enough to be the next potential hottest year. Yet you keep referring to a warming pause that did not happen. That is not honest.

You bring up ice area increases in one location instead of consistent total global ice volume loss across both caps and glaciers worldwide. That is not honest.

You use phrases such as AGWites to label scientifically inclined people who respect the consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists, with your own ideological approach. That is not honest.

Challenge: If you want to be a skeptic/contrarian based on science then find some credible scientific evidence to support your viewpoint, instead of throwing out data until you find a spot that "agrees" with you.

If you can do that, you will get respect from any scientific person, whether they agee with you or not.

Nov 20, 2014
As temperatures rise


Temperatures have risen before, temperatures will rise again. It is the way of the climate, to change.

Mr 'polar bear" Shootist.

Thanks for agreeing that global temps are rising.
Now please could you enlighten us/the world (and win a NP), with the reason it is?
As in the long term trend since the onset of industrialisation?

Err, no not the Sun... Or our orbital path around it. (NH in a summer cooling phase).
Perhaps the clouds have buggered off this last ~150yrs? (Just the cooling lower ones of course).
Or DM, or Galactic rays.
Or even a damned commy/liberal plot to get yer "tax dollars".
And all the worlds experts are in on it.
No.
Serious question... Waiting for your answer......
Except you won't will you?
Just a Troll, interjecting the odd imbecilic "polar bears ....." Comment.
FFS

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more