AGW/GW - Increased carbon increases carbon!

[OMGturt1es]

Researchers at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center report the results of a six-year experiment in which doubling the atmospheric greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in a scrub oak ecosystem caused a reduction in carbon storage in the soil.

...

Researchers at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center report the results of a six-year experiment in which doubling the atmospheric greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in a scrub oak ecosystem caused a reduction in carbon storage in the soil.

...

Their study reveals that added CO2 has a so-called "priming effect," stimulating certain microbes and increasing decomposition. Soils exposed to the elevated CO2 had higher relative abundances of fungi and higher activities of a soil carbon-degrading enzyme.


http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Smithsonian_Scientists_Report_New_Carbon_Dioxide_S tudy_999.html

very interesting study!

as AGW/GW come up quite often here, i figured all interested would find this story quite fascinating.

enjoy!

ETA: the microbes free carbon previously stored in the soils, releasing it into the atmosphere.

[Just thinking]

Do you like Philip Glass?

[OMGturt1es]

Do you like Philip Glass?

i... don't... know?

[fuelair]

Do you like Philip Glass?
I prefer carnival glass myself or a nice glass of ice tea.:) :rolleyes:

[Nancarrow]

Do you like Philip Glass?

[Just thinking]

Do you like Philip Glass?

To be honest, Conlon, he kind of repeats on me.

;)

[Just thinking]

Stupid double post ... :D

[fuelair]

I assume since a Phillip Glass scored The Illusionist that he is not the Phillip Glass you mentioned unless he part-times as a GWCTer.

[Just thinking]

No ... it was simply a joke. Perhaps a bad one at that.

Philip Glass is a modern composer whose works have passages that are often repeated and repeated and repeated. If you look at the first post you see a repeat of the first line in the quote.

Ha ha.

:p

[fuelair]

No ... it was simply a joke. Perhaps a bad one at that.

Philip Glass is a modern composer whose works have passages that are often repeated and repeated and repeated. If you look at the first post you see a repeat of the first line in the quote.

Ha ha.

:pBut then he could be the PG who scored The Illusionist if he composes film scores.:)

[The Mad Hatter]

If anyone's too lazy to listen to his music to get the joke, Uncyclopedia sums it up pretty well (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Philip_Glass).

[OMGturt1es]

No ... it was simply a joke. Perhaps a bad one at that.

Philip Glass is a modern composer whose works have passages that are often repeated and repeated and repeated. If you look at the first post you see a repeat of the first line in the quote.

Ha ha.

:p

ahhhhhh hhaaaaah!

sad thing is, i scoured my post looking for anything that had any relation philip glass, and i never noticed that first line being repeated...

:o

[lenny]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Smithsonian_Scientists_Report_New_Carbon_Dioxide_S tudy_999.html
as AGW/GW come up quite often here, i figured all interested would find this story quite fascinating.


it is a nice example of feed back, and the difficulty thinking in linear terms (for atribution or impacts) of cliamte change in a nonlinear system. thx for the link

Koyaanisqatsi

[Just thinking]

Yes... thank you.

All former silly jokes aside, it shows that we have much to study/learn in this area and should be careful jumping to overblown conclusions. The following shows a serious potential of a paradigm shift ...
"We were surprised to find that these soils were losing soil carbon despite the fact that there was more plant growth," said Patrick Megonigal, a microbial ecologist at SERC and one of the study's authors. "We thought that higher plant growth at elevated CO2 would either add more carbon to soils, or at least leave it the same. We now need to consider a third possibility-the carbon already in soils will end up back in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas."

[lenny]

The following shows a serious potential of a paradigm shift ...
this isn't really a paradigm shift: positive feedbacks hae long been discussed and their potential understood. unfotunately they are sometimes removed from summaries with the aim of making the explanation more easily "understood".

lets see: adding 1 unit of CO2 makes 1.04 units
adding 1+1 unit of CO2 makes 5 units of CO2...

[OMGturt1es]

it is a nice example of feed back, and the difficulty thinking in linear terms (for atribution or impacts) of cliamte change in a nonlinear system. thx for the link


though my position on GW/AGW is completely useless to anyone, i've found the entire "debate" fascinating. i think this study illustrates why both sides are likely to seem appealing, and why it can be so difficult to argue for or against AGW/GW without relying on an uncomfortable amount of speculation. while the study provides clear evidence that feedback loops are very real, it also provides evidence that our assumptions are often incorrect. the earth's climate seems incredibly complex-- as this study illustrates!-- and often we discover that the earth operates in ways that seem almost counter intuitive.

during the time that i've tried to research GW/AGW, my opinion has changed considerably. admittedly, i was inherently biased against the idea, likely due to the fact that i came from a conservative area. i was also skeptical about the recent "the science is in" claims, as they largely seemed to follow hurricane katrina and other anomolous weather events. but, i'm aware of my inherent bias, so i've tried to spend extra time evaluating the evidence for GW/AGW.

and there's a lot of it. there really is. and the basic ideas seem obviously true:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. humans have contributed to CO2 in the atmosphere.

i now believe that AGW is certainly happening. the earth is currently warming, and as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humanity has played some role. even if the earth was in a cooling trend, one would think that the excess CO2 would at least keep the earth warmer than it otherwise would be. i don't think one can argue against this, unless one can identify negative feedback loops?

anyways, this study really caught my eye, because it illustrated both the importance of feedback loops, which are inherently important to proponents of AGW, and the fact that the earth often proves our basic assumptions wrong, which, i think, is a large factor behind the views of many "deniers". (i'm using quotes, because i don't like the term, and i think it only encourages folk to become defensive, rather than open to new evidence...)

[lenny]

during the time that i've tried to research GW/AGW, my opinion has changed considerably. admittedly, i was inherently biased against the idea, likely due to the fact that i came from a conservative area. i was also skeptical about the recent "the science is in" claims, as they largely seemed to follow hurricane katrina
well, few of those working on the science reacted well to "the science is in".

but quantitative calculations of temperature increase to doubling CO2 do go back for over one-hundred years now..
it illustrated both the importance of feedback loops, which are inherently important to proponents of AGW,
note that the direct forcing due to increased CO2 is NOT a "feedback loop", positive feedback loops would make things worse still, negative feedback loops would decrease the impact: but the basic calculation that radiative forcing of increased CO2 leading to a planet warmer by a few degrees involves no "feedback loops" (both its strength and its weakness).
and the fact that the earth often proves our basic assumptions wrong, which, i think, is a large factor behind the views of many "deniers".
interesting: i wonder how often one would say our assumptions were "wrong" (the earth is flat) as opposed to "incomplete": how often everything included was "right" but we had left something out (metal fatigue and the lifetime of a commercial jet).

which is really more common?

[OMGturt1es]

well, few of those working on the science reacted well to "the science is in".


that was my initial understanding, which actually fueled my doubts. i suppose that the sensational media hype played to my initial assumptions. upon further study, though, it seems that my previously held conclusions can't be reasonably supported.


but quantitative calculations of temperature increase to doubling CO2 do go back for over one-hundred years now..

exactly, and this is why i don't think anyone can really deny that by dumping more CO2 into atmosphere, humans have had some influence on the climate.


note that the direct forcing due to increased CO2 is NOT a "feedback loop", positive feedback loops would make things worse still, negative feedback loops would decrease the impact: but the basic calculation that radiative forcing of increased CO2 leading to a planet warmer by a few degrees involves no "feedback loops" (both its strength and its weakness).


i think i used the term "feedback loop" rather hastily in this case? i meant that further study revealed previously unknown affects of extra CO2 in the atmosphere that actually lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere. the mere act of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will set off further conditions that will release even more CO2 into the atmosphere.


interesting: i wonder how often one would say our assumptions were "wrong" (the earth is flat) as opposed to "incomplete": how often everything included was "right" but we had left something out (metal fatigue and the lifetime of a commercial jet).

which is really more common?

that's essentially what i was getting at; the further we study the earth, the more complex it seems to become. previous conclusions that were supported by good evidence are shown to be incorrect, not because reasoning was faulty, but because key evidence was not available.