New Scientific Data on CO2

[Perchoutofwater]

New ground truth: soil microbe negative feedback

Posted on April 28, 2010 by Anthony Watts

 

This could be a game changer. From the University of California, Irvine press release, a finding that suggests soil microbes have a negative feedback with temperature increase. This has broad implications for the amount of CO2 emitted estimated in climate models. It had been assumed that as temperature increased, microbes and fungii would increase their CO2 output. Globally, this microbiotic contribution is large. The amount of CO2 released from soils worldwide each year is estimated to be about 8-10 times greater than the amount released by humans.

Humans 7, soils 60 - Source: University of Heidelberg

 

This study shows that soil microbes won’t go into a an “overdrive” mode when soil temperature increases.

 

Soil microbes produce less atmospheric CO2 than expected with climate warming

 

Key players in the carbon cycle, they multiply slowly when overheated

 

— Irvine, Calif., April 26, 2010 —

 

The physiology of microbes living underground could determine the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from soil on a warmer Earth, according to a study published online this week in Nature Geoscience.

 

Researchers at UC Irvine, Colorado State University and the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies found that as global temperatures increase, microbes in soil become less efficient over time at converting carbon in soil into carbon dioxide, a key contributor to climate warming.

 

Microbes, in the form of bacteria and fungi, use carbon for energy to breathe, or respire, and to grow in size and in number. A model developed by the researchers shows microbes exhaling carbon dioxide furiously for a short period of time in a warmer environment, leaving less carbon to grow on. As warmer temperatures are maintained, the less efficient use of carbon by the microbes causes them to decrease in number, eventually resulting in less carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere.

 

“Microbes aren’t the destructive agents of global warming that scientists had previously believed,” said Steven Allison, assistant professor of ecology & evolutionary biology at UCI and lead author on the study. “Microbes function like humans: They take in carbon-based fuel and breathe out carbon dioxide. They are the engines that drive carbon cycling in soil. In a balanced environment, plants store carbon in the soil and microbes use that carbon to grow. The microbes then produce enzymes that convert soil carbon into atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

 

The study, “Soil-Carbon Response to Warming Dependent on Microbial Physiology,” contradicts the results of older models that assume microbes will continue to spew ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the climate continues to warm. The new simulations suggest that if microbial efficiency declines in a warmer world, carbon dioxide emissions will fall back to pre-warming levels, a pattern seen in field experiments. But if microbes manage to adapt to the warmth – for instance, through increased enzyme activity – emissions could intensify.

 

“When we developed a model based on the actual biology of soil microbes, we found that soil carbon may not be lost to the atmosphere as the climate warms,” said Matthew Wallenstein of the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University. “Conventional ecosystem models that didn’t include enzymes did not make the same predictions.”

 

Mark Bradford, assistant professor of terrestrial ecosystem ecology at Yale, said there is intense debate in the scientific community over whether the loss of soil carbon will contribute to global warming. “The challenge we have in predicting this is that the microbial processes causing this loss are poorly understood,” he said. “More research in this area will help reduce uncertainties in climate prediction.”

 

Link

[cre8tiff]

Your source has impeccable credentials:

I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

 

Not to mention he has a navigation menu link called "Climategate" with links to 42 posts by him...

[bushwacked]

Your source has impeccable credentials:

 

 

Not to mention he has a navigation menu link called "Climategate" with links to 42 posts by him...

 

Above and beyond that the premise is f'n retarded. Whatever percentage of CO2 is man-made relative to naturally occurring CO2 is largely inconsequential in the scheme of things for numerous reasons. If naturally occurring arsenic is 8-10 more times more abundant that what is produced from industries it doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about how much arsenic we have in soil or groundwater.

 

ETA: whatsupwiththat.com

Edited April 28, 2010 by bushwacked

[Perchoutofwater]

Typical, disregard the message, and assault the messenger.