Dangerous Feedback Loop From the Soil?! WTF?!

I came across this article and I had to stoip for a second. In the article it says how scientists are warning of dangerous feedback loops which originate from soil; the very Earth we stand on.......In short

In a massive new study published Wednesday in the influential journal Nature, no less than 50 authors from around the world document a so-called climate system “feedback” that, they say, could make global warming considerably worse over the coming decades. That feedback involves the planet’s soils, which are a massive repository of carbon due to the plants and roots that have grown and died in them, in many cases over vast time periods (plants pull in carbon from the air through photosynthesis and use it to fuel their growth). It has long been feared that as warming increases, the microorganisms living in these soils would respond by very naturally upping their rate of respiration, a process that in turn releases carbon dioxide or methane, leading greenhouse gases. It’s this concern that the new study validates. “Our analysis provides empirical support for the long-held concern that rising temperatures stimulate the loss of soil C to the atmosphere, driving a positive land C–climate feedback that could accelerate planetary warming over the twenty-first century,” the paper reports. This, in turn, may mean that even humans’ best efforts to cut their emissions could fall short, simply because there’s another source of emissions all around us. The very Earth itself. “By taking this global perspective, we’re able to see that there is a feedback, and it’s actually going to be massive,” said Thomas Crowther, a researcher with the Netherlands Institute of Ecology who led the research published Wednesday. The new study is actually a compilation of 49 empirical studies, examining soil carbon emissions from research plots around the globe. The different studies produced variable results, including some cases in which soils actually pulled carbon from the air rather than releasing it. However, the researchers insist there was a pattern globally that was “predictable”: Soil carbon losses generally tended to track how much warming a region had seen, and how thick the upper soil layer was. The paper therefore found that the biggest losses were in Arctic regions, where soils are warming rapidly and also where they are quite thick — but also that well down through the mid-latitudes, soils were also losing carbon. And the net result for the research plots as a whole was a loss of soil carbon. The paper then extrapolated these findings for the globe, finding that by the year 2050, the planet could see 55 billion tons of carbon (which converts to 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide, were it all to be released in this form) released from soils. That’s if we continue on with a “business as usual” scenario of global greenhouse gas emissions and accompanying warming.

I think the other feedback loop deals with the oceans and the ebb and flow of warmer and cooler water(s) being disrupted due to the melting of glaciers. Now we have to worry about a feedback loop from land.....? I guess it makes sense but I wanna hear from the scientists here at ATS. What does this news mean in terms of Donald Trump's plan to un-do Nasa's Climate Change budget? Obama's EPA regulations? Etc..? What says ATS?

peakoil.com...

They have a list of these supposed end all feedback loops. If it were so direly delicate then there'd be all manner of extreme swings across the millenia. Yet, according to Al Gore, the climate hasn't changed hardly a lick for 400,000 years until man showed up.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
They have a list of these supposed end all feedback loops. If it were so direly delicate then there'd be all manner of extreme swings across the millenia. Yet, according to Al Gore, the climate hasn't changed hardly a lick for 400,000 years until man showed up.

There's no doubt that this is a natural process but the point for me is that Man's activities are accelerating this process.

a reply to: lostbook

If global warming oops climate change is real.

NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
www.nasa.gov...

Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years
cnsnews.com...

a reply to: lostbook

What does this news mean in terms of Donald Trump's plan to un-do Nasa's Climate Change budget? Obama's EPA regulations? Etc..? What says ATS?

More uncertainty. More dire predictions. Increased paranoia.

I'd like to believe Trump will funnel taxpayer dollars to the most cost-effective programs; a list of his regulatory priorities would help to give stakeholders some idea of what to expect and would almost certainly include a reduction in the EPA's purview over a global phenomenon (i.e. EPA's regulations on CO2 point sources).

Honestly, at this point it is a mitigation strategy that should be pursued...not saying we are at the "point of no return", but it's clear that the money currently being spent to 'combat' global climate disruption/change isn't at all cost-effective. That would be a good initial first step - regardless of one's political leanings (it's beyond clear that the incidence of "weather extremes" is at an all-time high given the current data) - in setting his (Trump's) regulatory agenda and spending taxpayer dollars on a extremely uncertain phenomenon.

Im not paying any warming taxes, thanks.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: lostbook

If global warming oops climate change is real.
NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
www.nasa.gov...

Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years
cnsnews.com...

Really? The Earth has broken global heat records for at least the last 4 consecutive years.

Wouldnt there also be a feedback loop of more plant growth from extra co2 and warmth, that would use more co2 from the atmosphere? 8

a reply to: lostbook

That may be true, but what time span are we speaking? 136 years when the first land temperatures were recorded or the last 35 years from when satellite data started?
What is the significance in that?

From the 97/98 El Niño there hasn't been any warming, so yes that's almost 20 years.

a reply to: lostbook

According to who. And we are looking at averages. 4 years is a very short short sighted length of time.

If you have a bad day at work, do you want the boss to fire you? Or would you rather the boss look at your last couple of years?

a reply to: lostbook

I've been provoked into responding.

This is quackery at its finest. Increased atmospheric carbon levels INCREASE soil fertility.
This is #ing basic climate science.

Now, back to laughing at the rest of the idiots on this site

Plants take most of their carbon from the air, removing it from the carbon dioxide. People think black soils, full of carbon are good for the garden, yes they are. The carbon that comes from the soil actually does so by vaporizing into carbon dioxide and the plant uses it. It releases enzymes through it's roots that cause this release to happen. That is how I understand it from what I read anyway.

When they cut out the forests, the soils are exposed to more sun and the extra heat can be a catalyst and release the carbon too into carbon dioxide. By tilling the soils the carbon is closer to the surface. What we are doing is cutting the rainforests and planting things, some fertilizers also increase carbon emmissions and the plants grow faster and produce more food. The problem here is that this releases more and more carbon into the atmosphere overall. This is happening in too many places. We are messing up bad. even by composting we add carbon to our gardens and this boosts the carbon dioxide. But that is the right way to do it, not increase enzyme activity that causes locked carbon to be released.

I may be a little off on this information, I compiled it from many sources to try to figure the best ways to grow my garden. You can lime the garden to free up nutrients but sooner or later it depletes the soils.

Don't waste food, doing so causes more to need to be grown and contributes to taking out forests which are our friends in carbon balance.

Unfortunately I'm gonna have to agree with this here. Plants use CO2 and produce O2 in return guys..... come on now... a reply to: SpongeBeard

Unfortunately I'm gonna have to agree with this here. Plants use CO2 and produce O2 in return guys..... come on now... a reply to: SpongeBeard

I think the focus is on microbes waking up in melting permafrost that go to work 'microbing', outgassing methane from munching all the decaying vegetation in the now unfrosted permafrost. Thats as undefinable as the rate of sealevel rise from melting ice.

Since every spring all the melt runoff from winter snow and ice all over the whole world doesn't raise sea levels either...

....or does it?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: lostbook

If global warming oops climate change is real.

NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
www.nasa.gov...

Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years
cnsnews.com...

Those links are 2+ years old. Here you can read about NASA's current data and take on weather extremes and the hottest record on year (2015 and 2012 were the previous record holders): NASA Observes Hottest 6 Months on Record and Artic Ice Warming Is Increasing Even Faster.

The World is warming; however, the increase in "extreme weather events" is more problematic as the economic impact from extreme events can be exponentially more devastating than the 'run-of-the-mill' flood, tornado outbreak, heat wave, extreme cold, etc.

global warming lol. our carbon flies across the galaxy, because mars is ALSO warming. im glad algorre and his trillionaire buddies are here to save us.

November coldest month on record, so I recon taking the hottest, and the coldest, and dividing by 2, earth is slightly colder.
I read one report of how the parts of the world that had 'its temperature taken' did not actually have any thermometers, so who is screwing with who ? (or whom for the spelling nazi's).

In all actuality those that claim we have a major negative effect on climate change you should be thrilled that the Trump administration are planning to roll back regulations and the mass exodus of companies. These same companies that return will ultimately emit far less damagings gasses hear in America than they would have under the rule of china among others.

In fact i would venture to say those demanding more regulations have actually damaged our enviroment far more, because of the companies that move to countries with no regulatory restraints with the environment in mind.

an analogy
if you practice fire safety in one room of the house and play with gasoline and matches in another the house is still going to burn down.

a reply to: lostbook

From your linked article

The paper then extrapolated these findings for the globe, finding that by the year 2050, the planet could see 55 billion tons of carbon (which converts to 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide, were it all to be released in this form) released from soils.

Doom porn of sorts don't you think. Let's take the current state and pretend nothing changes over time and bam, the world is toast.

This is the danger scientific imagination. Just report the facts. I thinking the facts show the earth to be quite resilient.

I'm sure we still need to be responsible and not make a mess but I don't think science needs to go around cooking up reason and stiring up fears to mandate a global conservation agenda that just like most government programs eventually make the elite more money and feel less guilty.