Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022.

How are you defining Climate Change?

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:How are you defining Climate Change?

I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games.

sealover wrote:Virtually No Recent Threads Related to Climate Change Prior to March 9, 2022.

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: Here are some things I am comfortable with
.There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than years ago because humans have burned stuff.

Why would you be comfortable with this idea? Are you under the impression that plants globally have put themselves on a strict diet and won't consume any more than their original meager limit? Did Climate impose this limit or did the Climate Lobby?

duncan61 wrote:It is still a tiny amount

You could double the atmosphere's CO2 content and in a day or two it would be right back to its current level. The world's plants would consume all that comes their way.

... but you say otherwise?

duncan61 wrote:Nature does 97% and humans 3%

What do you mean by "does"?

duncan61 wrote:Now you are claiming the very ground we walk on is going to get up and hurt us.

squeal over is the second one to propose that nonsense. trafn was the first.

sealover wrote:
I STILL Don't Play Definition Word Games.

sealover wrote:
As far as my international fame in the scientific community goes, discoveries regarding the nitrogen cycle got the most attention.

sealover wrote:
There is more than one unambiguous definition for the word "denitrification".

Nobody needs to explain which one they mean if they use the word correctly in context.

sealover wrote:
One happens in the stratosphere and one happens in the soil or water at the surface. No ambiguity really possible. No need for effing definitions!

sealover wrote:
If this is your only game, find someone else to play with.

sealover wrote:
I STILL don't play definition word games. Especially with disgusting trolls.

duncan61 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote: Here are some things I am comfortable with
.There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than years ago because humans have burned stuff.

Why would you be comfortable with this idea? Are you under the impression that plants globally have put themselves on a strict diet and won't consume any more than their original meager limit? Did Climate impose this limit or did the Climate Lobby?

duncan61 wrote:It is still a tiny amount

You could double the atmosphere's CO2 content and in a day or two it would be right back to its current level. The world's plants would consume all that comes their way.

... but you say otherwise?

duncan61 wrote:Nature does 97% and humans 3%

What do you mean by "does"?

duncan61 wrote:Now you are claiming the very ground we walk on is going to get up and hurt us.

squeal over is the second one to propose that nonsense. trafn was the first.

I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently.

duncan61 wrote:
If plants consume everything why is there any at all?

duncan61 wrote:
The carbon cycle is natural and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%.

duncan61 wrote:I used the word comfortable as at no point till now has anyone disputed CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently.

duncan61 wrote:IIf plants consume everything why is there any at all?

duncan61 wrote:The carbon cycle is natural

duncan61 wrote:and I have no issue with the claim 97% is nature and humans create an additional 3%.

IBdaMann wrote:
Thanks for playing.

come on down

climate scientist wrote:
Hi everyone

New paper just out in Nature here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20161201&spMailingID=52887839&spUserID=MzY4MjIzMjg5NjcS1&spJobID=1048432263&spReportId=MTA0ODQzMjI2MwS2

The essentials have been covered in this article (probably best not to take the title too seriously!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38146248

The authors have compiled data from 49 different field experiments around the world on soil carbon responses to warming. They find that under a 'business-as-usual' scenario of emissions and warming, soils could lose around 55 Pg C by 2050, although the uncertainty on this value is very high. This is around 15% of the emissions from fossil fuel combustion during this period, and therefore, if realised, would very likely exacerbate climate change (i.e. would act as a positive feedback on the system).

climate scientist wrote:

Forgive me if I'm being naive, but wouldn't the same changing climatic conditions that promote increased respiration also promote increased photosynthesis? I'd have imagined that the latter effect would typically more than outweigh the former, thus resulting in a net uptake of carbon by soils, rather than a net loss (hence giving a negative rather than a positive feedback effect). Is this not correct?

Yes, you are correct that for plants, the CO2 fertilisation effect will likely outweigh the increased CO2 flux from plant respiration. But these authors are talking about soil respiration, which is an additional source of CO2 to the atmosphere that is separate from plants, and does not have any associated photosynthesis flux.

Soils are a large reservoir of organic carbon on the land, and soil respiration (by microbes) is mostly driven by temperature (and partially driven by moisture).

climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

sealover wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
"Organic matter in the soil in the form of humus and other biomass contains about three times as much carbon as does land vegetation. Soils of arid and semiarid regions also store carbon in inorganic chemical forms, primarily as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These pools of carbon are important components of the global carbon cycle because of their location near the land surface, where they are subject to erosion and decomposition. Each year, soils release 4–5 percent of their carbon to the atmosphere by the transformation of organic matter into CO2 gas, a process termed soil respiration. This amount of CO2 is more than 10 times larger than that currently produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), but it is returned to the soil as organic matter by the production of biomass."

"A large portion of the soil carbon pool is susceptible to loss as a result of human activities. Land-use changes associated with agriculture can disrupt the natural balance between the production of carbon-containing biomass and the release of carbon by soil respiration. One estimate suggests that this imbalance alone results in an annual net release of CO2 to the atmosphere from agricultural soils equal to about 20 percent of the current annual release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Agricultural practices in temperate zones, for example, can result in a decline of soil organic matter that ranges from 20 to 40 percent of the original content after about 50 years of cultivation. Although a portion of this loss can be attributed to soil erosion, the majority is from an increased flux of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. The draining of peatlands may cause similarly large losses in soil carbon storage."

from https://www.britannica.com/science/soil/Soil-classification#ref709744

sealover wrote:Climate Scientist started this thread in January, 2016. I wish I had the chance to interact with another trained scientist at this website.

sealover wrote:The subject of this thread is of major importance.