Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change

climate scientist wrote: Hi everyone. New paper just out in Nature here.

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).

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?

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Soil respiration

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Soil respiration

Wikipedia. Dismissed.

Do you know what respiration is?

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Soil respiration

Wikipedia. Dismissed.

Do you know what respiration is?

Yes. Do you?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: But these authors are talking about soil respiration,

Soil respiration?

Too funny

Soil respiration

Wikipedia. Dismissed.

Do you know what respiration is?

Yes. Do you?

Wring answer. That was when you were supposed to admit that you really don't and that you'll reengage after you read up ... on non-warmizombie websites.

Oh wait, you can't do that, can you? Well, nevermind then.

Surface Detail wrote:Strange, Wikipedia was good enough for you to source your Greenland map,

Surface Detail wrote: and it appears to have a perfectly valid definition of respiration.

Surface Detail wrote:Never mind, perhaps you can direct me to a "non-warmizombie" website that gives a definition of respiration that is acceptable to you?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Strange, Wikipedia was good enough for you to source your Greenland map,

Someone can't read very well. Go back and try again.

Surface Detail wrote: and it appears to have a perfectly valid definition of respiration.

The rule still applies, if the reference is Wikipedia then it is summarily dismissed.

Surface Detail wrote:Never mind, perhaps you can direct me to a "non-warmizombie" website that gives a definition of respiration that is acceptable to you?

http://www.biology-innovation.co.uk/pages/human-biology/respiration/

Respiration
Respiration is a set of metabolic reactions and processes that take place with in the cells of organisms. It stores biochemical energy within adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules. There are two types of respiration, aerobic and anaerobic. Respiration is also the process of making ATP rather that breaking it down.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/respiration

1.2 Biology A process in living organisms involving the production of energy, typically with the intake of oxygen and the release of carbon dioxide from the oxidation of complex organic substances.

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote: Hi everyone. New paper just out in Nature here.

I don't know if you have heard of formal logic but it is a very useful tool in determing truth values and in assessing semantic contexts.

For example, formal logic tells us that something of the form "if X then Y" is an unfalsifiable statement, and is thus meaningless, if X is false. The thesis statement for this paper is the following:

"If anthropogenic warming stimulates the loss of this carbon to the atmosphere, it could drive further planetary warming. "

"anthropogenic warming" is a WACKY religious dogma of certain "Climate" faiths, i.e. it doesn't really exist. Ergo it can't stimulate anything in this reality. That makes the predicate false and the entire statement meaningless.

The bad news is that the paper rests on this meaningless gibberish. The paper itself, along with any conclusions are meaningless.


.

Into the Night wrote:Actually, the form of this particular argument is If X then X. It is a circular argument.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Actually, the form of this particular argument is If X then X. It is a circular argument.

spot is worried that I respond to posts so I'm going to specifically not respond to this post of yours ... hopefully spot will feel better now.


.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Actually, the form of this particular argument is If X then X. It is a circular argument.

spot is worried that I respond to posts so I'm going to specifically not respond to this post of yours ... hopefully spot will feel better now.


.

Okay. I'm glad you let me know that you are not going to respond to that particular post. Very gracious of you.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Actually, the form of this particular argument is If X then X. It is a circular argument.

spot is worried that I respond to posts so I'm going to specifically not respond to this post of yours ... hopefully spot will feel better now.


.

Okay. I'm glad you let me know that you are not going to respond to that particular post. Very gracious of you.

It's just the kind of guy I am.

Indeed you are. It's nice, isn't it, being able to freely discuss something that you'll never respond to?

.

Into the Night wrote:Indeed you are. It's nice, isn't it, being able to freely discuss something that you'll never respond to?

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

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, the name's the name. Quit nitpicking. I know it's hard to understand, if you're a three-year-old with an internet connection, but sometimes etymology is just weird.

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, the name's the name. Quit nitpicking. I know it's hard to understand, if you're a three-year-old with an internet connection, but sometimes etymology is just weird.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It's the name. For some reason, many people think that the name of something is intrinsically linked to the phenomenon itself.

It's not! I could call ocean acidification "whirlpool edification," and that would be its name. It's an utterly nonsensical name, but the phenomenon that the name refers to would continue. The ocean would still decrease in pH every year. Ever hear "a rose by any name would smell as sweet"?

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).

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, the name's the name. Quit nitpicking. I know it's hard to understand, if you're a three-year-old with an internet connection, but sometimes etymology is just weird.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It's the name. For some reason, many people think that the name of something is intrinsically linked to the phenomenon itself.

It's not! I could call ocean acidification "whirlpool edification," and that would be its name. It's an utterly nonsensical name, but the phenomenon that the name refers to would continue. The ocean would still decrease in pH every year. Ever hear "a rose by any name would smell as sweet"?

sealover wrote:
I hope you still get notifications if one of your posts gets a response.

I would love it if you came back to climate-debate.com

Please just take a quick peek.

Things have changed since you left.

sealover wrote:
There is no a rational discussion for qualified scientists to participate in.

sealover wrote:
Please take a look.

Please come back.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Sincerely,

"Sealover", PhD biogeochemist

climate scientist wrote:...these authors are talking about soil respiration, ...

tmiddles wrote:

climate scientist wrote:...these authors are talking about soil respiration, ...

I wonder if this couldn't be studied in an enclosed experiment (and has it). Like a biodome type setup.

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" is CORRECT - This is IMPORTANT.

I don't know if there is some way to contact "Climate Scientist" and get him to come back.

As the resident biogeochemist, I will take up this theme for Climate Scientist.

For the moment, this well written, succinct and accurate description of carbon cycling and carbon pools by climate scientists stands on its own.

SOIL CARBON STORAGE or soil carbon LOSS are a BIG DEAL.

sealover wrote:
I hope you still get notifications if one of your posts gets a response.

I would love it if you came back to climate-debate.com

Please just take a quick peek.

Things have changed since you left.

There is no a rational discussion for qualified scientists to participate in.

Please take a look.

Please come back.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised.


Sincerely,

"Sealover", PhD biogeochemist

-----------------------------------------------------------------

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).

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:
I hope you still get notifications if one of your posts gets a response.

I would love it if you came back to climate-debate.com

Please just take a quick peek.

Things have changed since you left.

There is no a rational discussion for qualified scientists to participate in.

Please take a look.

Please come back.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised.


Sincerely,

"Sealover", PhD biogeochemist

-----------------------------------------------------------------

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).

Nothing has changed, why lie, desperately to bring people back. Is this how you hope to recruit you horde of cult minion, to cleanse this website on May 1st?

I don't even open the email notifications. They just tell me there was some activity on the site, which I'll get around to looking at eventually. If they filled my mailbox, I'd shut them off, or spam filter them.

Most of your post are either complaining, or self promoting. Occassionally, you copy/paste an article, with little discussion.

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.

duncan61 wrote:It is still a tiny amount

duncan61 wrote:Nature does 97% and humans 3%

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

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