Now on ScienceBlogs: Charles Darwin February 12, 1809 - April 19, 1882

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

The Island of Doubt

An irregular exploration of the struggle between the power of rational discourse and the scientific method on one hand, and the forces of superstition and dogma on the other. Mostly regarding climate change, though.

Profile

me-fergus.jpg James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist and communications consultant based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Elsewhere

Inspiration

The Demon-Haunted World:
Science as a Candle
in the Dark, by Carl Sagan
(A review)

The Doubter's Companion:
by John Ralston Saul (Excerpts)

Skeptic Magazine: www.skeptic.com

Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal: www.csicop.org

A poem by Yehuda Amichai:
The Place
Where We Are Right


The Meaning of the
Island of Doubt


Author's site: cyamid.net


Add to Technorati Favorites! Penetrating so many secrets, we cease to believe in the unknowable. But there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops.
--- H. L. Mencken

By doubting we come to inquiry; and through inquiry we perceive truth.
--- Peter Abelard

Undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance.
-- Richard Dawkins

As for evolution, it happened. Deal with it.
-- Michael Shermer.

"There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving, and tiny blasts of tinny trumpets, we have met the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us."
--Walt Kelly

« What do you call the anti-global warming crowd? | Main | Climate change dropped from The Weather Channel »

Black carbon: Color matters when it comes to climate change

Category: climate
Posted on: November 22, 2008 12:52 PM, by James Hrynyshyn

ResearchBlogging.orgUpon first read, a new study about the contribution of "black carbon" to the global carbon cycle, and therefore to climate change, suggests things might not be as bad as now commonly thought. But first reads, especially by those who don't have a graduate degree specializing in exactly the field in question, can be misleading. And "Australian climate-carbon cycle feedback reduced by soil black carbon," which appears in the latest Nature Geoscience, is a case in point.

Black carbon is one the complicating factors that have to be taken into account when trying to figure out what the net effect of greenhouse-gas emissions really is. It is formed artificially through the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, but that's not the kind we're interested in here. Instead, it's the carbon found in the soil after burning organic matter, such as a forest.

That carbon eventually ends up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, and how fast it gets into the air depends on how warm it is. In other words, it's a consequence of and contributor to global warming. Because carbon emissions from the soil represent 10 times what humans are emitting, getting a handle on just how long it takes this feedback mechanism to work is critical for a full understanding of climate change. As Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University and his Australian and British colleagues write in the paper:

...for models that will fully incorporate soil C stocks9, failure to identify significant but highly stable fractions could render predictions of global climate change, even by simulation models with multiple soil C pools, inaccurate.
What Lehmann et al found when they closely examined Australian soils is that it take a lot longer for soil organic carbon to find its way back to the air than previously thought. For example, "If the existence of black C is not considered, the three-pool model predicts an 18% greater increase in CO2 production compared with a scenario that recognizes black C." And that kind of difference could have serious implications for the total amount of atmospheric CO2. Remember that soil organic carbon releases are an order of magnitude greater than anthropogenic sources.

But that's not the whole story. First, of all, Lehmann et al only looked at Australian dirt. And "An extrapolation of these results to the global scale is currently not possible, because very few data are available that report black C contents in soils outside Australia."

Second, and more importantly, what the Lehmann study primarily shows is that our climate models may have to be rejigged if they are to accurately simulate the global carbon cycle. It doesn't say anything about climate change observations.

Here's a relevant excerpt from Cornell's press release:

"We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted," said Lehmann. "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."
This is an important reminder that current climate models still don't yield the magnitude of warming actually being recorded. (Globally that's about 0.8° C). I asked Lehmann in an email to elaborate. He reiterated the main idea in his response:
We know that burning is part of many ecosystems worldwide, providing justification to look closely. And this provides the need to look where we underestimated emissions. If soil feedback is part of a particular prediction model, that portion may have overestimated warming feedback.
And CNN got an even better quote from him:
It means that if we overestimated the soil response to warming then we must have underestimated something else dramatically because we have a net effect of faster global warming. That is really something to think about.
So, if taking into account the burning of forests and the resulting role of black carbon will make our models produce even lower levels of warming that what we're seeing, that means we'll have to find other reasons to explain the discrepancies between the observations and models.

In other words, if the Australian situation is representative of the global story (something that by no means certain), then we know even less than we thought we knew about how we're affecting the climate. It's theoretically possible that what we've overlooked will prove easy to mitigate, which would be great. But it could just as easily turn out to be the opposite case.
--
Johannes Lehmann, Jan Skjemstad, Saran Sohi, John Carter, Michele Barson, Pete Falloon, Kevin Coleman, Peter Woodbury, Evelyn Krull (2008). Australian climate-carbon cycle feedback reduced by soil black carbon Nature Geoscience DOI: 10.1038/ngeo358

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Environment

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/86297

Comments

1

"And that kind of difference could have serious implications for the total amount of atmospheric CO2." Hmm. What difference are we really talking about here? Should it be based on total soil CO2 emissions (a very large number) or the much smaller additional amount (about 60 ppm IIRC) expected to result from warming by 2100? The latter seems to make sense, in which case we're taking about a reduction in the range of 10 to 15 ppm (even assuming that the much-burned Australian landscape is representative). 10 to 15 ppm sounds more like fine tuning than a major adjustment since it would be taken out of a total of about 700 ppm (talking BAU numbers throughout) by 2100.

Posted by: Steve Bloom | November 22, 2008 2:38 PM

2

Bottom Line - every day the religion of global warming (climate change????) is further exposed for what it was when the bible was originally written and for what it still is. Every day we learn more about what the Al Gore disciples didn't and don't know or assumed or modelled in an alarmist unecessary unscientific faction. ad infinitum. Long Live Global Cooling and killer avian flu.

Posted by: Canuck the Uck | November 22, 2008 4:54 PM

3

What doesn't make sense to me, is this putports to be about climate feedbacks affecting future levels of GHGes. But, climate models assume a predetermined concentration of GHG -especially if we are simulating todays climate, as we have measurements. So, at the level of trying to simulate climate at a fixed concentration of GHG, this study is irrelevant. Now if we are trying to determine the future level of CO2, given an anthropogenic emissions scenario then it might matter.

Also the rate of turnover of the soli carbon doesn't matter, the change in net carbon stored in the soil does. Although if you know a rate, and a lifetime I suppose you could solve for total storage.

Posted by: bigTom | November 22, 2008 7:45 PM

4

“Putting global warming laggards on trial”
http://www.desmogblog.com/putting-global-warming-laggards-trial

Hey, Can we file a suit here in Canada too?

Any one up for this?

Posted by: paulm | November 23, 2008 1:58 AM

5

bigTom, the strength of the soil feedback determines part of that predetermined concentration.

Posted by: Steve Bloom | November 23, 2008 7:39 AM

6

Hey Jimmy boy! Do a post about Forecast Earth getting FIRED for being alarmist idiots. Just sayin'/ have fun!!!!

Posted by: just sayin | November 23, 2008 11:24 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.