Scientists studying the effects of carbon on climate warming are very likely underestimating, by a vast amount, how much soil carbon is available in the high Arctic to be released into the atmosphere, new University of Washington research shows.
A three-year study of soils in northwest Greenland found that a key previous study greatly underestimated the organic carbon stored in the soil. That’s because the earlier work generally looked only at the top 10 inches of soil, said Jennifer Horwath, a UW doctoral student in Earth and space sciences.
The earlier work, reported in 1992, estimated nearly 1 billion metric tons of organic carbon was contained in the soil of the polar semidesert, a 623,000-square-mile treeless Arctic region that is 20 percent to 80 percent covered by grasses, shrubs and other small plants. That research also estimated about 17 million metric tons of carbon was sequestered in the soil of the adjacent polar desert, a 525,000-square-mile area where only 10 percent or less of the landscape is plant covered.
Horwath dug substantially deeper, in some instances more than 3 feet down, and found significantly more carbon. She concluded that the polar semidesert contains more than 8.7 billion metric tons of carbon, and the polar desert contains more than 2.1 billion metric tons.
“In the polar semidesert, I found nearly nine times more carbon than was previously reported,” she said. “In the polar desert, I’m finding 125 times more carbon.”
Yes, this is directed to folks interesting in the science investigating global phenomena — not the politics of denial. There actually is an ongoing [often] well-mannered discussion on cause-and-effect completely separate from blame, response and political rationale.
Update:
I’m trying to nudge folks beyond responses mostly rooted in ideology. The only serious question among climatologists is how much warming and how soon. The odd digression is the occasional “I heard a scientist say” and other bits of hearsay.
Saying that, I respect the integrity of those who commented. If you’d like to examine the science, here are a couple of places to start: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute — World Climate Program — Max Planck Institute, Earth Sciences and Climate Research.
Perhaps the eco-natzi’s who relentlessly fought nuclear decades ago – should consider that it is the only potential energy source capable of meeting the world’s needs, thereby displacing oil, – without creating CO2!~
The French, who have no trouble seeing things in their own self interest, bypassed the nuclear opposition and today they are much more energy independent.
I have no problem accepting global warming. Global temperatures have always been in a state of flux; only environmental evangelist seem to believe that global climate is supposed to be static.
What I haven’t seen — because there is no proof, only theory — is that carbon dioxide is responsible for the current warming trend. Actually, I could argue that this report suggests that it isn’t an important cause. Why? Because these areas have thawed before without environmental catastrophe. (I believe I read somewhere that the Vikings first settled Greenland, but later had to abandon their settlements when the ice returned. Hmm, could carbon dioxide release be responsible for global cooling?)
Do the science, but save the alarmist propaganda for the tabloids.
Some of these scientists have admitted lying about the science because they wanted the public to achieve a specific action, and of course the media just makes things sound as bad as possible to suit their ends. If you are interested in the science, this is 10 billion tons of carbon, so 10000 MTCE. Spread over a hundred years, that’s 100 MTCE per year, and the worldwide use right now is 10000 MTCE. This is just one year’s worth of carbon, nothing compared to the feedback effects that they are still studying. While they’re up there, perhaps they can explain why the polar glaciers are expanding? The ice is getting thicker, and those breaking icebergs are from a very small portion. Perhaps they can also explain why carbon levels were higher hundreds of years ago.
Nuclear is not “the only potential energy source capable of meeting the world’s needs, thereby displacing oil, – without creating CO2!” Combined use of wind energy, biomass, geothermal, solar, and hydroelectric power, along with higher-tech (and therefore cleaner) use of fossil fuels in lesser proportion are capable, at least in theory, of displacing rampant oil consumption.
The French are also more energy independent because, per capita, they use about 12 times less energy than Americans! Don’t underestimate the power of energy-efficiency programs. In Quebec, the government has already begun giving refunds to construction companies that build energy-efficient homes, and to individuals who buy electronic thermostats to control temperature and use less power heating. Properly implemented, this kind of program can go a long way towards energy independence.
And, people who condemn nuclear power are not “eco-natzis”. As far as I know, there are no “eco-natzis”, as I don’t think a Green party has ever come into power, waged a campaign of military dominance and ethnic cleansing across all of Western Europe. No point calling names.
An article like this makes me wish I understood more about science.
How do these numbers compare to standard soil? I would assume that the amount of carbon in the soil gets higher the deeper you go no matter where you are.
Likewise, the article seems conflicted as to what all of this means. While they started the article with the as-expected “released into the atmosphere” attention getter, they admited later that there is an equal chance that it will just encourage more plant growth.
Big picture: The planet is warming. What is causing it and what changes will really happen is the question, and there is still no clear answer.
She noted that there is disagreement among scientists on just what the added warmth might mean for the high Arctic. Some say warmer climate will produce greater plant activity to absorb more carbon. Others say the overall carbon absorption is decreasing as the permafrost retreats.
This just highlights the fact that the current models contain all sorts of assumptions about what is actually happening. If they actually included all the uncertainty in the models, the results would be rendered meaningless by a having a huge margin of error.
It’s nice to see science moving forward. But perhaps we expect too much of it. We need an “expert system” that we can point at the peer reviewed journals, and then wait for it to tell us when there is enough evidence to say one thing or the other. Is the answer 42 or not? We could have pointed this thing at the CIA database and avoided the Iraq war. Or maybe not. Maybe there’s some level of judgement needed in all these cases. And we should leave the judging to people who’s father’s didn’t botch the first war, or whose career and research grants don’t depend on the outcome.
Have Fallwell and Robertson weighed in on global warming yet? I’m surprised they haven’t linked this to gay marriage already. A little revealed truth on the subject could save a whole lot of heartache.
What would Jesus do?
Argue it all you want, the point is there’s nothing you can do about it. I don’t think most people realize what a precarious situation life is in on good old Earth. The major events will take decades, but short term events like droughts and crop failures can decimate our delicate specie.
So you have all these dire warnings, and then guys like Michael Crichton jump in and say the climate change stuff is all a Chicken Little crock (with interesting but often questionable arguments). There’s also talk of evidence that there’s a cyclic rhythm of ice ages which is caused by periodic changes in the Earth’s axis tilt in relation to the sun, and instabilities of solar output, etc. What’s Chicken Little gonna do about things like that?
I’d say we’re a great bunch of tiny creatures, each one aware of the relatively small bit of space that can be perceived around us, but which is in fact only an itty bitty part of an absolutely gigantic world in comparison. So, maybe it’s really hard to get an individual feeling of how a great number of us can effect large scale changes on such a huge system, except by what looks (to some) to be just abstract information.
To err on the side of caution would seem to be the best way to deal with it. But how do you get a bunch of teeny creatures to do that, if they’ve spent hundreds of thousands of years wandering around in the forest never having to worry about where their shit went?
Eidard, a few comments on your referenced science sources:
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute —
Their argument on a radical climate change brought on by the slowing Gulf Stream has merit and needs more research. Unfortunately, they seriously undermine their position when they blame the cause for the slowing Gulf Stream on man-generated CO2 emissions. They claim to have historical proof it has slowed before, so why is this slowing man-caused? I ask the question: Was the hijacking of their research by environmental evangelists with or without their cooperation? The message gets really mixed when they argue that global warming will lead to the freezing of Europe. What I get out of this is that the actual global climate doesn’t really matter as long as the research grants keep coming and you can blame any detrimental change on Bush, Big Oil, and SUVs.
World Climate Program —
I could sum up the purpose for this entire organization as follows: Start with a problem, then convince governments to give you a massive infusion of grants to study the problem and find solutions. Of course, if the problem doesn’t exist then the organization has no purpose. Or to put it another way, if the cause of global change is not man, then man cannot do much about it, can he? And if that’s the case, then why should governments pour billions into this organization and its affiliates?
Max Planck Institute, Earth Sciences and Climate Research —
Just reading their home page pretty much tells you where they stand:
“These cycles are affected significantly by greenhouse gas emissions and changes in the way mankind uses land. Chemical processes in the atmosphere, such as ozone reduction in the stratosphere and ozone build-up in the troposphere increase the effect of these activities. For this reason, research focuses on the link between the land, the oceans and the atmosphere – the whole climate system of the Earth. This integrated view is intended to clarify the extent to which humans are interfering in climate patterns.”
Not much point in doing the science if you have already formed your conclusions.
I want to see REAL science, not propaganda.
More CO2 leads to more trees, which eat up the CO2, and reflect sunlight, leading to less warming. It’s not clear why soil CO2 leads to anything. I assumed they were talking about carbon in ice that would get released when the ice melted.
More typically, methane in permafrost.
Have any given thought to what power the sun has and what Solar Flares can do to the earth??
Instead of chasing our tails trying to cut down on emissions, which will (at best) slow down the effects of carbon in the atmosphere, why aren’t more people looking at pulling the carbon back OUT?
This guy has a plan. A multitude of synthetic “trees” that scrub the atmosphere.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2005/11/7/1746
Trees don’t just cause air pollution(an official EPA position), they might be causing global warming too!
http://carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0512_05.html
It says that more forests in northern latitudes like the US leads to more warming, up to 6F in their simulation. The US does have more trees now than hundreds of years ago. So rather than buying Prii, perhaps we should just chop down the forests, though that leads to more CO2.
Oh, now you want integrity. Mighty nice of you when you have something that supports your position but not someone elses.