Source – washingtonpost.com
– “…We are in an interactive relationship with the sun heavily implicating (quantum) physics centring especially on magnetic energy transfer and low grade but effective crude information effected heat transferral or a thermostat effect. Demanded by the geologic record and pointed to by modern physics. The denial re. the sun not being pivotal stems from hopelessly antiquated ideas comparable with pre-heliocentricity”:
(Scientists have long feared this ‘feedback’ to the climate system. Now they say it’s happening –)
At a time when a huge pulse of uncertainty has been injected into the global project to stop the planet’s warming, scientists have just raised the stakes even further.
That feedback involves the planet’s soils, which are a massive repository of carbon due to the plants and roots that have grown and died in them, in many cases over vast time periods (plants pull in carbon from the air through photosynthesis and use it to fuel their growth). It has long been feared that as warming increases, the microorganisms living in these soils would respond by very naturally upping their rate of respiration, a process that in turn releases carbon dioxide or methane, leading greenhouse gases.
It’s this concern that the new study validates. “Our analysis provides empirical support for the long-held concern that rising temperatures stimulate the loss of soil C to the atmosphere, driving a positive land C–climate feedback that could accelerate planetary warming over the twenty-first century,” the paper reports.
This, in turn, may mean that even humans’ best efforts to cut their emissions could fall short, simply because there’s another source of emissions all around us. The very Earth itself.
“By taking this global perspective, we’re able to see that there is a feedback, and it’s actually going to be massive,” said Thomas Crowther, a researcher with the Netherlands Institute of Ecology who led the research published Wednesday.
The new study is actually a compilation of 49 empirical studies, examining soil carbon emissions from research plots around the globe. The different studies produced variable results, including some cases in which soils actually pulled carbon from the air rather than releasing it. However, the researchers insist there was a pattern globally that was “predictable”: Soil carbon losses generally tended to track how much warming a region had seen, and how thick the upper soil layer was.
The paper therefore found that the biggest losses were in Arctic regions, where soils are warming rapidly and also where they are quite thick — but also that well down through the mid-latitudes, soils were also losing carbon. And the net result for the research plots as a whole was a loss of soil carbon.
The paper then extrapolated these findings for the globe, finding that by the year 2050, the planet could see 55 billion tons of carbon (which converts to 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide, were it all to be released in this form) released from soils. That’s if we continue on with a “business as usual” scenario of global greenhouse gas emissions and accompanying warming.
“It’s of the same order of magnitude as having an extra U.S. on the planet,” said Crowther. The world has less than 1,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide remaining to emit in order to preserve a reasonable chance of holding the planet’s warming below 2 degrees Celsius, a widely embraced target, so soil emissions could help to bust the carbon budget.
Crowther argues that until now, the science community has often left this potential carbon feedback from planetary soils out of its calculations because it wasn’t well enough understood. “The entire magnitude of this feedback was removed from several of the earth system models, the models that inform [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], because of its massive uncertainty,” he says.
Moreover, he adds that while the study did heavily consider the Arctic and thus, regions of permafrost soil (a huge repository of planetary carbon), it only took into account emissions from the upper layer of soil, about 10 centimeters thick. So if warming liberates carbon from deeper permafrost layers too — a major fear — then the numbers presented above for soil emissions could be too small.
There is, of course, one potential offset to this — even as the Earth’s surface is losing carbon from soils, it also appears to be putting at least some back again due to an increased growth in vegetation, which is being fertilized by more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in tern enhancing plant photosynthesis. However, Crowther does not believe this will suffice to offset soil carbon losses.
Another researcher who focuses on Arctic soils and reviewed the study for the Post, permafrost expert Ted Schuur of Northern Arizona University, agreed with Crowther on plant growth, suggesting that even if models predict it may offset soil loses, field studies like the ones summarized here don’t support that.
“This impressive work again highlights the largest losses of soil C from high latitudes, which agrees with field measurement and incubations that we’ve summarized in our work,” said Schuur. “These losses offset gains that are predicted in soil C in other temperature and subtropical ecosystems.” Schur added that since the study only considers the first 10 centimeters of soil in the Arctic, “we might consider that a minimum loss since there is a lot of soil C beneath that.”
Two other outside experts contacted by the Post took a similar tack.
But Sanderman also noted studies have suggested that better management of agricultural soils could sequester large amounts of carbon, perhaps enough to offset the losses projected in the new study.
“While this paper shows how soils are part of the problem, it’s important to note that soils can also be part of the solution,” Sanderman continued.
Comment – By Philip Heywood
Antiquated, straightjacketted thinking in denial of everything science is supposed to represent. 1). If climate is closely governed by carbon gases, then every time our temperature got a bit too high or low, and a dreaded exponential run threatened—– guess what must have happened? The volcanoes and/or methane–dry ice comets got a ‘phone call and swung into action with the precise amount of CO2, CO, CH4 etc., required to balance the equation. Given that carbon gases are but one tiny input to a vast, complex system — those volcanoes and comets were cool dude mathematicians and operators. Almost half as good as Darwin’s warm little pond. 2). But since life actually did survive here all those 4thou. mill. yrs —- with carbon never falling too low nor yet mysteriously rising too high — well done, carbon, volcanoes and comets, the great masters of thought and calculation! — since we are not a frazzled, broiled, frozen wasteland as observation of Space and all the calculations demand — what tripped the balances? 3). The censored, vilified facts available to all? We are in an interactive relationship with the sun heavily implicating (quantum) physics centring especially on magnetic energy transfer and low grade but effective crude information effected heat transferral or a thermostat effect. Demanded by the geologic record and pointed to by modern physics. The denial re. the sun not being pivotal stems from hopelessly antiquated ideas comparable with pre-heliocentricity.
Quantum category energy transfer such as occurs throughout and about stars such as our sun, can not be measured conventionally. It’s effectiveness however may be deduced from observation. So the denial of solar control of climate is nothing but denial of the published observations which link solar magnetism and geo magnetism with our climate, and of the fact that modern physics gives a way forward here. Intelligent design. The basis of science.