Don’t look now. Might be another negative feedback the modelers forgot. When the cold arctic warms up, there are more plants and less tough old moss. The real, err, surprise — was what happened to the bacteria and fungi. The micro-critters that normally decompose organic matter are pretty happy about the switch from tough moss to tasty tundra shrubs (or in this case, to cake, I’ll explain in a minute). They adapt in a jiffy to chewing through the freshly dead bits of gourmet plants with more nitrogen. So instead of decomposing more in warmer weather, the soils got richer with carbon and decomposed less.
After reading the press release, I watched the video and was a bit surprised to find them seeding the ground with sugar, rather than gourmet arctic plants. I’m a bit underwhelmed by the study design. Though the end result sounds believable because life on Earth spent 500 million years figuring out ways to suck that CO2 out of the sky.
The researchers even suggest this might slow global warming. If it does, it will be a symbolic, unmeasureable semi-hundredth of a degree. But perhaps the nicest thing about this is that at Lund University there are still researchers allowed to put out press releases suggesting “good news” for the climate.
Climate change creates more shrub vegetation in barren, arctic ecosystems. A study at Lund University in Sweden shows that organisms, such as bacteria and fungi, are triggered to break down particularly nutritious dead parts of shrubbery. Meanwhile, the total amount of decomposition is reducing. This could have an inhibiting effect on global warming.
A large amount of the Earth’s carbon and nitrogen is stored in arctic ecosystems where the ground is permanently frozen, known as permafrost. Climate change causes such soil to heat up. Johannes Rousk at Lund University, together with colleagues Kathrin Rousk och Anders Michelsen from the University of Copenhagen and the Center for Permafrost (CENPERM), have conducted field studies outside Abisko in the very north of Sweden, studying what happens to the decomposition of organic material as the climate gets warmer.
“As the Arctic region becomes warmer, more shrubs start to grow, rather than moss which is difficult to break down. The shrubs have leaves and roots that are easy to break down and secrete sugar. What we have shown is that decomposition organisms, such as bacteria and fungi, are triggered to look for nutrient-rich organic materials that contain more nitrogen, while decomposition as a whole is reduced,” says Johannes Rousk.
When the nutrient-rich material is decomposed, the nutrient-poor part of the organic material is enriched, probably causing the amount of carbon to increase. Current climate models do not consider the connection between increased shrub vegetation as a result of ongoing climate change, and soil becoming less nutritious.
“It will be exciting to see how this will affect the soil carbon turnover in the long term. Perhaps our results will help complement future climate models,” says Johannes Rousk.
Today no one knows what less nutritious soil in the Arctic ecosystem and an overall decreased decomposition of organic material will lead to. However, Johannes Rousk dares to venture a guess:
“I suspect it will have an inhibiting effect on global warming,” he says.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo1oCVOLCsQ
REFERENCE
Kathrin Rousk, Anders Michelsen, Johannes Rousk. Microbial control of soil organic matter mineralisation responses to labile carbon in subarctic climate change treatments. Global Change Biology, 2016; DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13296
Is there perhaps another bit of good news in this? Could it mean less tundra and will that mean less of that horrible methane put into the atmosphere?
60
And sugar? Don’t ask me. I try to think at least a little everyday but I can’t imagine why sugar.
40
Breaking news, Lund University discover a Candyland while exploring on the good ship lollipop. 🙂
101
I wonder if we could send the CAGW luvvies to the arctic to count polar bears?
22
“I suspect it will have an inhibiting effect on global warming,” he says.
Its only a wild guess.
31
Whereas a particular herb slows warming in its tracks.
‘According to a recent UN report, farm animals release a total of 80 million metric tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, which is 23 times more potent at warming the planet than carbon dioxide.
‘As a result scientists have been trying for years to come up with different ways to prevent them from belching and flatulence.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3596466/Can-OREGANO-help-solve-climate-change-Feeding-herb-cows-reduce-greenhouse-gases-farts-burps.html#ixzz492YSIftg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
50
Wellt he whole “greenie” thing also has a sub-agenda of stopping people eating meat ( forcing people onto a vegie diet )…so it makes sense to demonize meat-producing herbivores and reduce their numbers by….drum roll….. demonizing methane from meat-bearing animals.
welcome to the extreme greenie ( deluded and demented ) fractured fairy-tail view of the world….
71
Those are very, very sick people, made all the more dangerous by their delusion that they are holy, right-thinking messiahs whose judgmentalism is deity-endorsed.
62
Hmm.. suspciaously like the Dark Ages Inquisitions…..
10
For what it’s worth, I choose to avoid eating meat, and have done so for many years – but I am not going to try to convince others that they should do the same.
I cannot deny that I would have no problems living in a vegetarian world (though the reality wouldn’t match the theory, I am sure – I’d still be on the outer, as I’m not a vegan, and that makes me a horrible and evil person in the eyes of certain vegan extremists), but I certainly think that imposing such a system, and denying people the ability to make their own decisions is completely and utterly regressive, and wrong.
20
Hey, the only GOOD animals that get the Green
Certificate of Approval are wild, indigenous
animals like man-eating lions and crocodiles.
Scorpians ‘n snakes are pretty GOOD too,keepin’
down the evil human (Non-Green) population,
capitalist-swine n’ such.
20
Eating a veggie-tarian diet will have its own drawbacks – will need more plants, more variation in plants consumed, meaning larger farms and more fertilizer, godz forbid it’s not organic, and no GMO ! Maybe we will evolve a multiple-stomach system, like cows and camels, so we can forage on all greens.
I won’t even go into what a lack of proper protein can do to a person, yikes.
10
The primary reason why the warmists attack farm animals is that a lot of of the world’s agriculture is undertaken under the capitalist system. They do not know that this is the case because under this system the farmers take all the risks, and so long as they get fed the populace likes that idea. What they do know is that Karl Marx said that there should be no private management of industry, so they have to cut down the small business capitalist farmers.
They believe that once they get rid of all the small famers, nobody will weep when they take over the few remaining big ones.
21
Woolly mammoths in the Arctic were snacking on something more than lichens and moss 40,000 years ago — grass and presumably shrubs. Which begs the inevitable query: if we bring back the mammoth from extinction, wouldn’t it be best practice to give them a climate in which to thrive? Because global temperatures had to be a LOT higher 40,000 years ago in the Arctic to support those beasts.
221
That’d be a BINGO right there AZ.
The question I have asked many times in other forums concerning the fears of methane released from thawing permafrost etc etc.
“How did all that warmer climate bio-mass come to be there in the first place?”
192
James, we have to realise that the Arctic has NEVER been this warm before and it’s now killing animals more than ever:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-13/shrinking-shorebirds-a-sentinel-for-climate-change-in-the-arctic/7409296
And then there’s Polar Bears [or is it Fizzics?]
33
Maybe the mamoths absorbed CO2 and methane? Makes as much sense as CAGW/IPCC “science”….
40
Sorry Spanky,
You’re correct – I forgot about the overwhelming evidence of scientific consensus regurgitated by tofu consumers.
42
Google “distribution of mammoths”. Do a bit more reading and return with the correct answer.
36
After huge SLR at the beginning of the Holocene the last population of Woolly Mammoths lived in isolation for 6,000 years quite happily on Wrangel Island in the Arctic up till around 4,000 years ago.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5896262/the-last-mammoths-died-out-just-3600-years-agobut-they-should-have-survived
How much warmer was it then?
50
Why ask me that question? You can easily look it up. You and AZ can also look up papers describing the food mammoths ate, where and when.
16
Seeing as we don’t have details of temperature measurements and GISP is only a rough guide I could also leave it to your [hopefully educated] imagination.
32
another way of putting my response is that it is rude and somewhat aggressive (as in, would you say this face to face) to just act as though you are refuting something by making some vaguely coherent sounding statements that lack any substance. I wrote, “refuting something”, as a hint that you didn’t actually make a point.
26
Sorry to be blunt but you were too. I didn’t make a “point” to James either yet he still got it.
20
Dear Mrs Leaf,
Despite numerous participation ribbons your little sprig, Gee Aye, still does not play well with others.
Yours, etc etc
Sergeant GI
62
It’s a sap filled sprig
24
More sass than sap…
22
Sure?
SAP was an agricultural poison for ferals
00
“It’s a sap filled sprig”
Yes, we know you are nothing but a sag.
Have you another point to make?
00
lol
00
“Why ask me that question?”
I agree.. everyone knows that all you will ever produce in garbage and empty nonsense.
Why would anyone ever bother to ask you anything !!
11
AndyG,
I’ve found that Gee Aye always offers an objective point of view.
It can come across as a little abrasive and dismissive sometimes, but on the plus side anyone who cooks corn pone can’t be all bad.
00
Correct. Boil your sweet potato but don’t make it into complete mush
10
‘Mammoths were herbivores — they ate plants. More specifically, they were grazers — they ate grass. Mastodons are closely related to mammoths, but they had a different diet. They were browsers — they ate leaves.’
wiki
10
Meanwhile, on the other end:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-19/giant-prehistoric-bird-found-in-antarctica/7427460
11
I suspect there was much more O₂ in the atmosphere then, as well, perhaps as much as 30%. O₂ requirements would increase by the cube of some effective average dimension, but O₂ intake would be limited by the square of the nostril size. Bigger animals could only be sustained with more O₂.
30
From what little I understand about mammoths, I understood that the consistency and common occurrence of wear-marks on the underside of tusks had been interpreted as an indication that they often used their tusks to sweep away snow cover and expose vegetation.
I imagine that a herd of these large herbivores would have to expose an awful lot of vegetation to sustain themselves?
irrelevant, but I also understand that mammoths had a large variety of hair colours – just like humans, so maybe the red-heads didn’t react well to sunshine, and I am sure there is a ‘blonde’ joke there somewhere too…
10
I have lost any faith in so called scientists. Apart from a small group we all trust the rest seem very much subject to what is currently fashionable and what will ensure grants keep coming. When government funding is stopped then we might get some believable research.
82
Yes well you can see what happens to everythingthe Left runs…. exhibit “A” …. Soviet Russia….exhibit “B” – science….
30
Baxter Black (US veterenarian, cowboy poet and after dinner speaker)
“First rate management hires first rate help
Second rate management hires tghird rate help”
Socialism hires?
10
Lawrie.
“Apart from a small group we all trust”
What group is that?
The study looks fine to me, it is the sort of thing biologists study.
01
Don’t worry, they’ll be out of a job soon enough once the ‘real’ climate scientists get involved.
91
Jo
O/T but worth reading IMO in the “science not settled” mode
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/18/the-coral-bleaching-debate-is-bleaching-the-legacy-of-a-marvelous-adaptation-mechanism-or-a-prelude-to-extirpation/
Bemused #5
One of those “real climate scientists” gets mentioned
51
You mean ‘Hoegh-Guldberg’?
20
That chap who loves cavorting about Cape Bowling Green in his underwater clobber.Tax payer paid, of course.
00
Interesting that so little was made of the fact that the lower GBR had undergone a rapid increase in size during the same period as the surface bleaching (as seen from ff driven aircraft).
Apparently there was a period of very calm currents up north with cloudless skies warming the surface waters. This meant the poor little critters that inhabit the reef couldn’t get enough food. So they packed up and moved further south where there was food.
Now they have had a nice little holiday, and the waters are moving again, I’m sure many will move back into their vacated coral homes.
52
“A large amount of the Earth’s carbon and nitrogen is stored in arctic ecosystems.” And what defines a “large” amount? Seems to me that the arctic is a small part of the earth, and there is a lot more carbon stored in the oceans and in the greener parts of the earth.
51
I got cranky reading some alarmist blurb about banning plastic becasue it created a “plastic soup” in the oceans….I figured givent he volume of the oceans, I doubt we could produce enough plastic to even impact a poomteenth of water volume on this planet…..
Manuel!! ( application of desert spoon to forehead…)
31
Robber
On a thread here a while back there were a couple of comments on the immesse conifer forests in the NH taiga region of Russia, Canada and Alaska.
IIRC one mentioned a flight in Russia of around 1500 km over forest with only ONE visible track
30
Another Ian – well spotted, I was about to do the same thing myself. Mr Hoegh-Guldberg seems to be guilty of the IPCC disease – ignoring any evidence that doesn’t agree with his mindset,and then screaming ‘the sky is falling’. To whit, this morning’s report on the ABC news that his buddies from JCU (Brodie, Pearson) have published a paper claiming that this election is our last chance to save the GBR, and BTW please send us $10 billion to control not only the GBR but ‘its catchment’, i.e. all business and agricultural activities along most of Australia’s east coast! The publication (and subsequent gross ABC amplification) of this sort of stuff during a federal election campaign reeks of desperation, at least to this cynical old git.
131
Repeated on ABC Radio around 1 pm on.
20
Would it be that when funding is an issue his front end is pronounced “Hoover”?
00
In relation to Lawrie’s comment above , last night I came a cross an announcement in the print media.
It seems that “scientists” have discovered that treatments for depressive illness may need rethinking.
It has been “discovered” in May 2016 that antidepressant pills are little more effective than placebos and are better used in conjunction with “talk therapy’.
Imagine my shock to realise that I had been taught this in 2002 during my studies in neuroscience. It seems that my lecturers were actually 12 years ahead of world science.
Or wait..
Possibly this info was kept out of the public eye for two reasons:
First it would reduce the placebo effect for those taking SSRI “antidepressants” but most importantly, possibly lead to a complete halt in
the sale of ??? You guessed it,
Antidepressants.
Who says money can’t buy everything. The silence of the Lambs.
KK
41
I’m not so sure about that. My 85 year old mother (with onset of dementia) has just gone into a nursing home and she becomes all manner of cranky etc unless she gets a tiny little ‘happy pill’. She has no idea what the nurses are giving her, along with her other medication, so a placebo effect cannot be considered.
And I’ve seen the effects on much younger people as well, and it’s chalk and cheese when with or without the happy pill. From my observations, empirical evidence (?), these pills do work.
20
Hi Bemused.
I was talking about SSRIs/antidepressants.
There are new antidepressants which are not saris but which really give a good night’s sleep.
Your mother’s happy pill experience is almost certainly something else, ie not sari.
I’m not sure what you are describing with the “pill” and younger people.
There used to be an add that went “oils ain’t oils”.
This “new” research just confirms once again that antidepressants are mostly benefiting pharmaceutical companies.
The best remedy for depression is a saner society, lots of exercise and good sleep.
But in the end it’s whatever works, hence many people drink.
I have only recently begun to drink and it works.
A bit.
KK
Look at the pill discussion above; see Manfred.
20
From my experience, the best remedy for depression is RECOGNISING you are suffering from it and learning how to deal with it and live with it. Doesn’t cure it, and you’re never ‘super happy’ as some people seem to be (or may be they are on drugs?) but functioning quite well without drugs.
30
Good points.
Mostly we just act like the frog in the pot of water on the stove; great when he got in but didn’t notice the change till too late.
And Happy? A myth.
Happiness is the freedom from suffering.
If you are not suffering, then you are happy.
30
So KK, am I sublimely ecstatic in absence of abject misery, cheerful when devoid of usual mild melancholia and like a bird, just a little chirpy when only slightly despondent?
20
Manfred
Must admit that the words were learned some time ago and come from a study of Buddhism: The Four Immeasurable Thoughts
By the power and truth of this practice
May all sentient beings enjoy happiness and the causes of happiness;
Be free from suffering and the causes of suffering;
May they never be separated from the great happiness, devoid of suffering, and
May they dwell in the great equanimity that is free from attachment and aversion.
KK
00
In order to experience ‘great happiness’ one must have experienced the counterpoint?
Thank you KK. It resonates.
20
Nope, that simply doesn’t work. I know people who recognise such and they can’t control the effects that it causes. I think its a chemical imbalance in the system and anti-depressants adjust for that imbalance.
30
You are right. I should have made clear that it works for me but doesn’t work for everyone. For some it gets them half way For others it doesn’t even get them off the starting block. I really would like to know why there is such an epidemic of depression.
10
SSRIs not saris 🙂
Manfred’s special pill, see vid at:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/05/abc-attacks-philanthropist-for-old-skeptical-email-scores-flack-deletes-comments/#comment-1805908
10
To be honest, I don’t know the difference between one or the other medication. I was mainly talking from experience when it comes to depression with people that I know and how medication does seem to work and work well. The age difference was just an example of how I’ve seen the effects of depression on different age groups and that these ‘happy pills’ do work.
Drinking (alcohol) is good. It’s an ancient remedy, is good for health (red wine stuff etc), relieves stress, is healthier than soft drinks, and all the rest. But you have to be a happy drunk to maximise enjoyment.
30
Kinky – SSRIs have been around a long time – since the 1980s. Not a “new” antidepressant.
10
Yes I was talking in that post about a newer drug that was not an SSRI. It gives a good night’s sleep and some relief from the chattering mind but “they”, the pharmaceutical scientists don’t know how it works. It is a remarkable sleeping pill.
I know that there are professionals who say that they (the SSRIs) work and for some people that is no doubt the case, but they are generally not much better than placebos. A recent announcement made public in the media was that doctors had been warned about prescribing to young people. I have commented on this before and believe that the reported suicides in the “young people on SSRIs” group shows that SSRIs don’t fix or control depression. The mechanism which allows malfunctioning circuits to stay functional is wrong. Nature took these circuits out for a reason. Restoring them to full function just allows the dysfunctional circuits to keep taking us down.
Perhaps being removed from a toxic environment is the first step in fixing depression. This may mean getting away from a bad work situation or getting off the internet or TV.
Having supportive people around is also good as is occupying the mind with simple non threatening activity.
If you want to look at a specific group who suffer depression look up Postpartum Progress. Women can be seriously hurt by depression during pregnancy and after birth. The site is a good place for info about hope and the possibility of getting through a bad patch.
Wow.
KK
00
Talk psychs will say meds are placebo and bunk. Med psychs will say talk therapy isn’t going to work for certain people – especially when chemical imbalances and damage exist. Some psychs say both should be used. All psych study results will show the bias of the researchers. Fact is, no one knows enough about how the brain works, or how it doesn’t when it doesn’t, so what ever works for a person is the thing to do – and bias against one therapy or the other should be dropped.
10
Hi M,
I agree that what works for the individual is good but want to say that the use of SSRIs on young depressed people points very strongly to the ineffectiveness of SSRIs. On the PPP site mentioned above many women swear by “meds” and it makes me happy to see someone benefiting from them.
As I understand it, the original certification of the SSRIs based medication was achieved by assembling a cherry picked set of results.
It’s a big problem which the many tons of pills consumed has not fixed.
I just hope that society can move to a better,safer place than we are in now.
00
Way OT for the site, but as it feeds into biases in web-sites and sciences in general….
I take an SSRI – for mild depression, anxiety. A mild form of something akin to post-traumatic stress. Works wonders for me. Lets me breathe, relax, be -me- and not ramp up into a spiral of panic and gloom. Talk did nothing for it. Other meds made me giddy, or giggly, or just numb, or still panic-gloom spiraling/cycling. No, SSRIs aren’t for everyone. Every brain is different, brains at different ages are different. At this time, for me, what I take works.
I never had, and don’t have, problems with sleep. So I can’t say anything about sleeping aids. Except that watching CSPAN (US politics in any form, really) puts me right out.
Tricyclics have their own issues, as do Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs have lots of food and drug interactions to be wary of) and SSRIs. Those are the AD med classes I know of. All drugs have issues – which is why I say the biases need to be turned off and the best med, or therapy (talk, art, etc)or combination should be determined and used.
10
Very much appreciate your very relevant comment. Thanks.
It’s always good to look at how science progresses; although this hasn’t been about Climate change, it has illustrated the sometimes uncertain progress made by science. What has basically been a jump into the unknown with antidepressants has led to some new understanding of the neuropsychology of the brain and some relief for people suffering.
Kk
00
Scientists have discovered that the words “scientists have discovered” are followed by statements that turn out to be in error 87.9% of the time. This may be the case here. The fact that sudden discontinuing of antidepressants can create an extremely unpleasant experience is just one sign that they are effective.
It is probably true, however, that “talk therapy” is a necessary adjunct to antidepressants. They are not to be taken lightly or prescribed like aspirin. They work, but they won’t cure underlying problems by themselves.
40
Hi Jorge and bemused.
I must qualify what I am saying here because I am only referring to SSRIs.
Valid studies have shown that they have about the same benefit as a placebo.
As Jorge says coming off them can be difficult but many believe that the benefit in taking these antidepressants is that you get to talk to the doctor and his receptionist plus the pharmacist and you interact.
When you also believe they are doing you good there is a lot of placebo at work.
The last straw for me was hearing that the U.S. Army was feeding soldiers with battle fatigue on Antidepressants and sending them back to the fight.
Sad and possibly inhuman. But then,that’s politics.
KK
10
KinkyKeith May 19, 2016 at 6:13 pm
“Hi Jorge and bemused.I must qualify what I am saying here because I am only referring to SSRIs.
Valid studies have shown that they have about the same benefit as a placebo. As Jorge says coming off them can be difficult but many believe that the benefit in taking these antidepressants is that you get to talk to the doctor and his receptionist plus the pharmacist and you interact.”
KK, There are many, many mind altering chemicals that can be and are ingested without killing the ingestoror! No psychiatrist can explain the effect without having the same mind at the same life where/when as the ingestoror.
For me the chemicals only increased the bounds of what I could think with time to think (sleep) before bouncing off the next wall, ceiling, floor! To experience that, must be highly addictive to that chemical. OTOH both legal Prozac, and illegal Marijuana, do the same thing for certain folk. Currently Prozac is legal and Marijuana is illegal, only to increase the profit of the manufacturers of Prozac, now called the generic Fluoxetine with no allowed variation in chemical makeup down to the picogram!
Marijuana OTHO comes in many, many different delicious flavors, serving a much broader spectrum of patients. Is it any wonder that such remain illegal in most locations?
All the best! -will-
20
Will
I believe I am correct in saying that SSRIs are based on a very loose association between serotonin and depression.
As Jorge said, many have trouble coming off them.
This doesn’t mean that they fixed the depression and the sudden removal sends that person back to depression.
It just means that “something” happened but it rarely involves “fixing” the depression.
The withdrawal is unpleasant because Serotonin levels are being messed about and the experience of the withdrawal doesn’t mean that you are necessarily better off with the pills.
Also, and very important, ALWAYS talk to and follow the doctors instructions.
As you say, our bodies and neurological function are never exactly the same and possibly some do get great relief from SSRIs and that is great.
In Buddhism, one of the basic practices is to sit in a chair for as long as you can with just your brain for company. Can be scary.
First time I tried it I felt claustrophobic after about 5 minutes. I gradually built up to being able to “sit” for an hour.
Over time you are developing the ability to have your mind sit at rest; it is memory training just as you learn times tables by repetition, so too you can get the brain to be at ease more often in daily life if you deliberately practice “stillness”.
The there’s drink and stuff when we get lazy.
KK
00
Will’
If you are an “ingestorator” I hope that this “Marijuana OTHO” is just a slip up
and that you didn’t really intend “Off Top Head Off”?
KK
00
Are I stoned or what?
10
The one inescapable equation to ponder : GAGW = BS
32
correction ( CAGW )
20
Well it’s gagworthy, isn’t it?
20
🙂
00
“The one inescapable equation to ponder : GAGW = BS”
That equals sign is so pablum! implying ‘only’ numerical sameness with no intent on any meaning!
Please try to be more expressive from:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/entities/symbols.html
GAGW ⇐ BS; meaning leftward assignment from BS.
GAGW ⇒ BS; meaning rightward assignment to BS.
GAGW ⇔ BS; free meteorological alphabet soup with no meaning whatsoever.
30
Maybe:
((CAGW),BS) as in a subset of the full set were pedantry rules. I think Egor got the meaning across.
20
I agree fully. I are only commenting on the symbols used:
Imagine STUFF with no legal definition! looking like this to kids!
STUFF ⇑ meaning WOW!
STUFF ⇓ meaning Owh,No! Jelly bread on carpet. 🙂
20
Must be “new” math?
00
Don’t Look Now (CCR)
Who will take the coal from the mine?
Who will take the salt from the earth?
Who’ll take a leaf and grow it to a tree?
Don’t look now, it ain’t you or me.
Who will make the shoes for your feet?
Who will make the clothes that you wear?
Who’ll take the promise that you don’t have to keep?
Don’t look now, it ain’t you or me.
70
There is always this presumption, this modern arrogance, this egotistical human centric point of view that our world, our surface world of animals and plants, the place where we live, is the main game in climate and that we humans are really in charge. That is unlikely, even ridiculous. We would be better described as a recent infestation, curable or at least self limiting.
As most of the world’s CO2, 98% is just dissolved in the oceans, the ‘biosphere’ can do little more than take and return from an atmosphere which is maintained by the oceans which are 340x as massive (average depth 3.4km, 1 atmosphere per 10 metres) and stuffed with most of the air. Oceans determine everything. Ocean temperatures control climates, rain, monsoons, storms and ocean evaporation is everything, ocean surface temperature. A short rain can change an uninhabitable desert into a cool garden. Go to Petra and see how they harvested the short heavy rains to build a world in the desert. Fresh water is life but we also need salt, sol, the white gold of the Romans, their salary. We are fish out of water.
For example the ocean water which evaporates gives us the rain on which we live and without which we could not live. What would the world be like without rain from the oceans? Water not tiny CO2 traps the heat, forms clouds and ice and snow and reflects light and creates rain which distributes heat and has enormous ocean currents which form the Gulf Stream and Humboldt current actually control heat distribution, not the air. The heat in air is a poor cousin, as the Gulf Stream proves. You cannot even see CO2 or N2 or O2, which should tell you something and what comes out of chimneys is H2O, the real greenhouse gas. We know all this and can see it, but worry about tiny largely transparent CO2 because of the politics.
Even the conversion of CO2 back to O2 so we can keep breathing is largely done by the ocean’s phytoplankton, not the forests and plants of the smaller land surface. Grasses are as good as forests in converting CO2 to O2, but Greens love inedible forests. The funny thing is that many aspire to be vegetarians when only 10,000 years ago man had not discovered agriculture. We have the cutting, ripping teeth of carnivores but they like to dream about a time which never existed.
It is arrogance that makes people interpret their land world and very thin atmosphere and CO2 as the major controller of the temperatures of the planet. No, it is the oceans and water, rain, snow, ice. Even we are creatures made mainly from water and CO2 and sunlight, processed carbohydrates and water, filled with water. We weigh very little dried and burn easily. Water is the most dramatic greenhouse gas and quite opaque in quantity unlike other gases. Most days in most countries you can see that clouds are what stops the light from reaching the ground in most places, most of the year. We can feel clouds trap the heat. It is all about water and the oceans. Or it could be the lichen in the arctic controlling our weather? Tell them they’re dreamin’.
72
TdeF May 19, 2016 at 10:12 am
Perhaps it is time to consider the polite chitchat of two vultures sitting on the power line. :
Vulture#1, I am so damned hungry!
Vulture#2, Ya! me too, but what to do?
Vulture#1, Patience my ass! I am gonna go kill something! Vulture#2, Yey bro, good idea!
All the best! -will-
10
A tough paper to read for various reasons but is an interesting basis for further study. I could not grasp some of the technicalities but I do worry whether they’ve covered all bases with their controls.
I had a quick look at earlier research and it too is underwhelming. There doesn’t seem to have been any concerted or long term work on plant microbe interactions in the region and lots of the research is, like this paper, open to questions about the design of the experiment (as Jo points out for this paper the sugar scattering – understandable in the context of getting an outcome in a reasonable time frame but then the time frame might be a factor as well as the complexity of C-sources). It would be nice to see them look at different biotic regions, different seasons (where possible), and longer time-frames.
25
Mark Steyn on the CAGW / CACC propaganda fiasco : (Mark Steyn’s Stand Against Climate Alarmism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wQp0Ir5Vc&nohtml5=False
11
When can we expect the Bureau of Meteorology management to keep their word and demand answers from their climate change department personnel about the obviously misleading media releases they keep churning out that are used as part of just about every news weather presentation from compliant media?
After all, the report to the Minister that led to consideration being given to conduct due diligence using independent auditors did claim that the media releases that do not match historical records data were errors and omissions and were being dealt with to ensure the misleading media information was not continued.
32
“The researchers even suggest this might slow global warming”
1. there is no global warming. A single +0.5C in the 1980s is all we have and that may be instrumental.
2. slowing presumes the entire logic that increased CO2 causes warming, so this is Cook’s entire proof of consensus even among shrubbers
3. even if CO2 did produce warming, the warming would be negligible, and the slowing even more so
4. you have to say these things, just to get funding for studying shrubs in the Arctic, not a boom field and with very few shrubs.
The fact that warmer conditions mean more plant of the type which could capture more CO2 is an odd argument. So CO2 increases warming but warming then reduces CO2 but plants are made from CO2 not warmth but more can survive and these are better at capturing CO2? Anyone would could work out the ideal balance of warmth, CO2, plant type and sunshine deserves a medal. Plus funding.
Global Warming was a gift for researchers. However modern electronic publication has reduced paper consumption which has left forests intact which has reduced CO2 in circulation, reducing overall CO2 and in combination with smart phones and the end of photos is killing the Finnish economy. It is not all good news but perhaps a little warmer in frozen Finland.
22
Global O2 & CO2 fluxes by soil microorganisms have been substantially underestimated as the following paper demonstrates.
Wingate, Lisa, et al. “The impact of soil microorganisms on the global budget of δ18O in atmospheric CO2.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.52 (2009): 22411-22415.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/lwingate/publications/Wingate_soil_18O_PNAS.pdf
Also, earlier studies may have missed the time lag that has been observed between initial warming and CO2 flux.
“One of the major uncertainties in climate change predictions is the response of soil respiration to increased atmospheric temperatures (Briones et al., 2004; Luo et al., 2001). Several studies show that increased temperatures accelerate rates of microbial decomposition, thereby increasing CO2 emitted by soil respiration and producing a positive feedback to global warming (Allison et al., 2010). Under this scenario, global warming would cause large amounts of carbon in terrestrial soils to be lost to the atmosphere, potentially making them a greater carbon source than sink (Melillo et al., 2002). However, further studies suggest that this increase in respiration may not persist as temperatures continue to rise. In a 10-year soil warming experiment, Melillo et al. (2002) show a 28% increase in CO2 flux in the first 6 years of warming when compared to the control soils, followed by considerable decreases in CO2 released in subsequent years, and no significant response to warming in the final year of the experiment.”
Amendolara, Tabitha. “Soil Microorganisms and Global Climate Change.” (2011).
http://www.goucher.edu/Documents/verge/papers8/SoilMicroorganismsAndGlobalClimateChange.pdf
We cannot know from this experiment the net fluxes in year 11 and subsequent years, since the experiment was discontinued in year 10 when the net flux reached zero.
30
On a related note…
Jones et al. looked at a peat bog near Fairbanks, Alaska and calculated the carbon accumulation rates over the past 2200 years. The site has been permafrost free ‘only’ for the last 500 years. The researchers found that following the thaw carbon accumulation rates have been 5-6 times higher than previously.
A 2200-Year Record of Permafrost Dynamics and Carbon Cycling in a Collapse-Scar Bog, Interior Alaska
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10021-012-9592-5
30
Production of atmospheric sulfur by oceanic plankton: biogeochemical, ecological and evolutionary links.
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(01)02152-8
http://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol201665
Sulfur transformations.Key transformations for the biogeochemical cycling of sulfur that involve both organic and inorganic compounds have been identified in Roseobacter clade members and recently reviewed by Moran et al. (74). Isolates of the clade were the first marine strains found to simultaneously possess two key pathways for the degradation of the sulfur-based algal osmolyte dimethylsulfoniopropionate (40). These competing pathways may play a role in determining the balance between the incorporation of sulfur into the marine microbial food web (the demethylation/demethiolation pathway) and the release of sulfur in the form of the climate-influencing gas dimethyl sulfide (the cleavage pathway) (57, 122). Field studies show that clade members are prevalent and active members of dimethylsulfoniopropionate-assimilating communities in the surface ocean (42, 67, 117). In addition, many Roseobacter strains are capable of transforming other organic sulfur compounds, including dimethyl sulfide, methanethiol, methanesulfonate, and dimethyl sulfoxide (39, 40, 51, 94).
Clade members also harbor abilities to transform inorganic forms of sulfur, including elemental sulfur, sulfide, sulfite, and thiosulfate (see, e.g., references 39, 73, and 104-106). These pathways facilitate sulfur-based lithoheterotrophy, which has been demonstrated in several Roseobacter strains (53, 73, 104). Inorganic sulfur oxidation is an important process in many coastal and benthic marine environments (e.g., sediments and sulfide-rich habitats), and the recent discovery of genes encoding sulfur oxidation enzymes (sox genes) in open ocean bacterioplankton (73, 115) suggests a previously unrecognized role for sulfur oxidation in these systems as well. Reactions involving sulfur (organic and inorganic) have been found in 12 of the 41 major Roseobacter lineages (Fig. 4).
Carbon monoxide oxidation.Members of the Roseobacter clade have been implicated in the consumption of carbon monoxide (CO), an important greenhouse gas that forms in seawater when sunlight oxidizes marine dissolved organic matter (123). Evidence that clade members are participating in biological CO oxidation in the ocean includes the demonstration that strains can oxidize CO in culture (58, 112) and that the roseobacter Silicibacter pomeroyi harbors two CO oxidation (cox) operons in its genome (73). S. pomeroyi has been demonstrated to oxidize CO at concentrations typically measured in coastal and open ocean surface waters (10 nM and 2 nM, respectively). However, it differs from previously characterized CO oxidizers in that it does not grow autotrophically and instead uses CO as a supplementary energy source during heterotrophic growth (73). Evidence for CO oxidation has been found in six of the major Roseobacter lineages thus far (Fig. 4), and CO oxidation may prove to be a successful ecological strategy for planktonic roseobacters in sunlit surface waters.
10
http://aem.asm.org/content/71/10/5665
00
Interactions between primary producers and bacteria impact the physiology of both partners, alter the chemistry of their environment, and shape ecosystem diversity1, 2. In marine ecosystems, these interactions are difficult to study partly because the major photosynthetic organisms are microscopic, unicellular phytoplankton3. Coastal phytoplankton communities are dominated by diatoms, which generate approximately 40% of marine primary production and form the base of many marine food webs4. Diatoms co-occur with specific bacterial taxa3, but the mechanisms of potential interactions are mostly unknown. Here we tease apart a bacterial consortium associated with a globally distributed diatom and find that a Sulfitobacter species promotes diatom cell division via secretion of the hormone indole-3-acetic acid, synthesized by the bacterium using both diatom-secreted and endogenous tryptophan. Indole-3-acetic acid and tryptophan serve as signalling molecules that are part of a complex exchange of nutrients, including diatom-excreted organosulfur molecules and bacterial-excreted ammonia. The potential prevalence of this mode of signalling in the oceans is corroborated by metabolite and metatranscriptome analyses that show widespread indole-3-acetic acid production by Sulfitobacter-related bacteria, particularly in coastal environments. Our study expands on the emerging recognition that marine microbial communities are part of tightly connected networks by providing evidence that these interactions are mediated through production and exchange of infochemicals.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7554/full/nature14488.html
31
Infochemicals? There is a lot of creative writing here, which co-occurs with sulphur based chemical signals used as semaphores in a bidirectional binary exchange, sometimes ternary and multi level, context dependent. What has happened to plain speech? Gone with the diatom excreted organosulfur molecules I guess. Most importantly, CO2 is not mentioned.
20
I mean I hope this makes sense to someone, because it reads like an attempt to overwhelm not inform.
20
TdeF May 19, 2016 at 7:19 pm · Reply
“I mean I hope this makes sense to someone, because it reads like an attempt to overwhelm not inform.”
When any bipod is learning to walk, first is the deliberate unbalance in the direction of walk then extension of the singular other limb to prevent collapse in that direction. Rinse shorts then repeat!
Some only lurch (Crow) to fool predators. The Ostrich can outrun others, except for quadruped kittens!
10
I think – there is a lot of little things in the oceans, and they aren’t separate creatures so much as part of a larger community, and they use chemicals – like forms of acetic acid – to communicate/direct/react to each other (mating signals/procreation of some sort in there too?) and we don’t really know much of anything about this entire system but that it produces these things and new tiny invisible creatures happen and make more chemicals.
20
Just a little off topic but I do cover Canada in my latest at The Daily Bail. My concern are fire issues being under-reported and technical issues concerning lightning regarding wind turbines. Lots of other goodies in this one!
31
Fires in Siberia in the summer every year, covering vast areas.
11
I have a background in civil engineering/wind/electric transmission and distribution. I also have served as a fire chief and forest fire warden.
11
Wow, did y’all know that “climate science™” accounts for 55% of all modelling done in science..
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/climate-modelling-dominates-climate-science/
For such a tiny branch of pseudo-science, that is amazing.
No wonder so little is based on real data. !!
32
Interesting.who wrote and who reviewed. Also,,, where is the evidence that this is a bad thing?
10
Andy,
The “models” are an embarrassment to real science and engineering.
No one in their right mind would claim to be able to “model” the behaviour of the planet’s atmosphere let alone model it in response to just one variable, CO2, that is basically irrelevant or impotent.
KLIMATE SCIENCE ™ is a truly amazing sociological phenomenon, but it has no tangible science attached to it.
KK
12
Anomalous outgassing halted
Since the turn of the millennium, upwelling has generally subsided in all sectors apart from the Pacific, halting this anomalous release of stored CO2 into the atmosphere. But the winds have also changed the temperature of the surface water. By bringing warm air from subtropical latitudes into the South Atlantic they have warmed the surface waters of the South Atlantic substantially. At the same time, the anomalous low pressure system in the South Pacific brought exceptionally cold air from the interior of the Antarctic continent to this sector of the Southern Ocean, leading to a strong cooling there.
Together, the wind and temperature changes explain much of the reinvigoration of the Southern Ocean carbon sink. The cooling of surface waters in the Pacific sector enables them to absorb more CO2. In the Atlantic sector, on the other hand, changes in the wind-driven circulation patterns are likely responsible for the higher oceanic uptake of atmospheric CO2. Normally, this sector of the Southern Ocean is characterised by a significant upwelling of deeper waters, which increases the amount of dissolved inorganic carbon in the surface layer, thus counteracting the uptake from the atmosphere. The weakening of this upwelling system in recent years now enables the upper ocean to absorb more CO2.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150910144049.htm
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
11
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-41.83,-87.77,345
00
Isn’t it amazing how “settled science” keeps evolving?
31
The study is an interesting first step, but not useful at this point if they cannot put any numbers to it. More research required.
01
Surprisingly skeptical comment, for you, Harry….
00
Skeptical? No, not really.
00